Issues with lossless.

Aug 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 25

lilkoolaidman

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Posts
807
Likes
52
Is there a difference between WAV and Apple lossless or WMA Lossless. I've heard there is a difference but why wouldn't lossless mean flippin lossless? All WMA or ALAC does is compress the files with out data loss. So how can you NOT hear detail that was never lost? Are certain lossless formats better than others? Is there a difference in stereo separation between codecs?

I dunno, it just seems common sense that WAV, or true lossless, would be the same as another lossless format as far as sound. Any thoughts about WAV sounding better than WMA lossless (or any other codec) seems like just a placebo if you were told one was better.
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 9:07 PM Post #2 of 25
The only difference is that wav files are not compressed. ALAC and WMA lossless use compression (not lossy compression) to shrink the size of the files. All of the mentioned file types have the same quality.
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 9:09 PM Post #3 of 25
Flac is the most open format, you may have trouble playing alac and wma lossless on non apple and non microsoft DAP's (without hassle of re-encoding a lossy copy which your dap supports)
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM Post #4 of 25
They will sound the same and contain the same data. The advantage of FLAC is that it's taggable and saves space.

Any difference is either related to placebo, the common misconception that compressed lossless isn't actually lossless, or errors within the playback software/codec.
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 9:14 PM Post #5 of 25
Quote:

Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif
They will sound the same.

Any difference is either related to placebo, the common misconception that compressed lossless isn't actually lossless, or errors within the playback software/codec.



That's what I wanted to hear! I thought it would be dumb if there were a difference.
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 9:14 PM Post #6 of 25
I rip and store in flac, whenever I get some device that only plays xx loss less format, I just que up a conversion of my entire library to the new format and I'm done - no loss of quality.
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 9:26 PM Post #7 of 25
WAV, FLAC, ALAC, and WMA lossless have the exact same audio quality (assuming you're talking about 16/48). By definition, really...they don't lose anything. The difference in the codecs, then, lies in how much they can compress audio, what features they have (non-16/48 bit/sampling rates, CUE sheet embedding, tags, anything else you care to think of), and compatibility. FLAC's probably the best, especially compression- and feature-wise, but ALAC is iPod-compatible and WMA is...well...Zune compatible?

Really, you can compress a WAV in FLAC and then decompress it and it has the same checksum...that proves that there's no difference in SQ.
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 9:29 PM Post #8 of 25
Quote:

Originally Posted by lilkoolaidman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's what I wanted to hear! I thought it would be dumb if there were a difference.


Not dumb, more "impossible". FLAC is the most open, has the most features, and thus is generally the best for archival copies (what lossless formats do best).
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 9:53 PM Post #10 of 25
I heard that if the compressor(?) has to go through the kmixer. It's not as good, so you should disable your mixer. Does the kmixer really play a role in how well WMP compresses? and ultimately the quality in the lossless format?
 
Aug 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM Post #11 of 25
Quote:

Originally Posted by lilkoolaidman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I heard that if the compressor(?) has to go through the kmixer. It's not as good, so you should disable your mixer. Does the kmixer really play a role in how well WMP compresses? and ultimately the quality in the lossless format?


Are you talking about ripping to WMA lossless through Windows Media Player? Just use dBpoweramp or EAC.
 
Aug 14, 2009 at 1:37 AM Post #12 of 25
Quote:

Originally Posted by bba1973 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Are you talking about ripping to WMA lossless through Windows Media Player? Just use dBpoweramp or EAC.


Yeah, so I guess it's not so much the format that makes a difference it's what you use to rip the CD. And dBpoweramp and EAC are better than WMP at ripping to WMA lossless?
 
Aug 14, 2009 at 1:46 AM Post #13 of 25
I've never been able to tell the difference between WAV and any of the various true compressed formats. But I've always wondered if there might be at least the potential for degradation of SQ at runtime due to the overhead of reconstituting the file. Maybe not audible, but...

No, I don't believe this. But I've always wondered.
 
Aug 14, 2009 at 2:22 AM Post #14 of 25
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I've never been able to tell the difference between WAV and any of the various true compressed formats. But I've always wondered if there might be at least the potential for degradation of SQ at runtime due to the overhead of reconstituting the file. Maybe not audible, but...

No, I don't believe this. But I've always wondered.



If we're talking about a DAP that is not so well designed from an electrical noise perspective - like a sansa e200 - some formats may increase the amount of noise coming from the cpu and storage and memory busses due to the increased amount of processing power required to play it back.

But you shouldn't be using lossless on such a crummy DAP anyway.

fwiw FLAC is one of the easiest formats to decode, and APE is one of the hardest.
 
Aug 14, 2009 at 2:40 AM Post #15 of 25
Quote:

Originally Posted by lilkoolaidman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yeah, so I guess it's not so much the format that makes a difference it's what you use to rip the CD. And dBpoweramp and EAC are better than WMP at ripping to WMA lossless?


Yes! Well, at least dBpoweramp. Not sure if EAC supports WMA lossless though. They both have secure mode, which makes sure your rips are accurate and don't have diginoise (pops, skips, etc. from a bad rip). EAC is highly regarded by audiophiles, but dBpoweramp is much easier to use (and gives pretty much the same results) and is much more straightforward. What's really neat with dBpoweramp is how it integrates with Windows Explorer and allows you to just right click to edit ID tags.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top