[NiceCans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bixby I thought for a long time that lossless was close, then I really compared and heard the loss of depth and spatial cues in lossless as well as the loss of some dynamics. That was enough for me to totally commit to WAV.

Lossless IS the same as wav . . . . .

 

[bixby]

Gorman and Nice Cans, I respectfully disagree, but you really need to keep an open mind and do some more homework. WAV and Apple Lossless are not the same. WAV is as close to the CD format as we can get in the pc world, Apple Lossless is a codec that is not an exact bit for bit copy but uses encoding to reduce the size of the file by encoding the 1s and 0s in a different more space efficient manner. Then upon playing, decodes this space efficient data back to it's original 1s and 0s patterns.

The codec used for Apple lossless indeed does account for all the original 1s and 0s, but something is happening in the encoding/decoding that affects the sound. I can hear it and so can others. So when I say the dynamics are less and spatial cues are not as apparent, I hear it. And I believe the codec and process are having an audible effect on what is delivered to me.

If you cannot hear the difference, then great, you get to have a lot more tunes in the space you have on your device.

Others can hear the difference with WAV and Apple Lossless. If it doesn't bother you then by all means listen to the most lossy format you can stand. You'll have plenty of room for all your favs.

But don't tell me that they are the same, they are not. Take a look at what some others are experiencing in this thread about half way down, as just one example.

http://newaudiosociety.com/cgi-bin/y...num=1105648581

Cheers

 

[richard]

The odds of anyone successfully being able to tell the difference between lossless and wav in a real ABX test (double blind, volume matched, etc.) are about zero, unless there is a serious flaw in your decoder. The odds of being able to tell the difference in any other sort of test are much higher.

 

[wax4213]

ABX is the key in this sort of thing, but I also believe that the placebo effect isn't always a bad thing. I enjoy listening to music on my iPod with Rockbox more than I do with the Apple OS, but I couldn't tell you what was better about it. It might just be placebo, I don't know, but I enjoy the music more. I seriously doubt that I would be able to ABX ALAC/FLAC to WAV, but if someone else can, or they just enjoy WAV more, then I say all power to them.

 

[bixby]

Yes, agreed.

It kind of reminds me of the beer tasting test we did in college. Four beers in glasses and each tester noted differences as they tried to match the 4 bottles of differnt brands to each glass. The trick was that they were all the same beer poured in different ways as to change the carbonation and hence taste or smoothness.

I am still sticking to my simple test. For me it is like tasting the difference between sugar and aspartame or butter and margarine. Or did I prefer Parkay better, hmmm.

 

[kugino]

the FILE-types between WAV and AL are certainly different...heck, they're different sizes. however, as they are both lossless they should sound the same, assuming that they've been ripped and transcoded properly. that being said, i seriously doubt that tests to distinguish between the two filetypes result in significant (statistically-speaking) results. no, 99% of people cannot tell the difference between the two and any suggestion that they can should be met with more than a modicum of skepticism.

however, i consider the placebo effect to be a wonderful thing...if it makes people feel better about their equipment, music, etc. and in general provides a more wonderful listening experience, then who am i to argue? if WAV makes people feel better over AL, then that's great.

there are a lot of threads on this topic over in some other threads (many which have been closed), so i won't start a flame war here...'tis all i'll say.

 

[The Monkey]

Back on track:

Anyone receive their new ipod (not Nano) yet? What do you think?

 

[Zanth]

I'm trying to decide what to do... I have the iPhoto 60 GB and use it as my office/school transport/dac for now. I would love to get a nice DAC but that is for another thread. The Nano...at 8, is enough certainly for on the move, to and from A and B and while jogging. BUT!!! then I saw the Shuffle and for the first time thought dang...THAt is the perfect workout system. So now I am left thinking maybe the Nano is a bit pricey for a 3rd iPod to be used for say...bedtime, or in the car etc, while the iPhoto stays put at my office. If the sound quality is stellar though, I may think seriously about it.

A Nano + E500's = AWESOME bedtime system.

 

[Gnus]

Took a look at the link and though this was interesting...

Apple Lossless = somewhere between .wav and Mp3...since it takes up half the space of a .wav but doesn't sound as bad as Mp3, this has been my compromise in my iPod. I did the comparison using Grado SR225s--these are very airy, detailed headphones. I did notice a slight loss of detail and space using Apple Lossless, but for casual listening on my iPod in noisy airplanes and the like it's not a big deal to me. For critical listening, I suggest staying with .wav--we ARE audiophiles afterall.

Anyways, back on topic, get the 80GB and hope that RWA does an iMod for it.

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gnus Took a look at the link and though this was interesting... Apple Lossless = somewhere between .wav and Mp3...since it takes up half the space of a .wav but doesn't sound as bad as Mp3, this has been my compromise in my iPod. I did the comparison using Grado SR225s--these are very airy, detailed headphones. I did notice a slight loss of detail and space using Apple Lossless, but for casual listening on my iPod in noisy airplanes and the like it's not a big deal to me. For critical listening, I suggest staying with .wav--we ARE audiophiles afterall. Anyways, back on topic, get the 80GB and hope that RWA does an iMod for it.

audiophiles are critical listeners of music and lovers of equipment that will enhance this critical listening. they are NOT those who purport to hear things that aren't there

i doubt there will be an imod to the 80GB since it's the same size as the 60GB...vinnie said it won't be done b/c of size.

 

[honda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey Has anyone owned the 3G and the 5G? How do they compare?

I own both. 5G has a clearer sound and a bit more bass. I just got a new 8gb Nano though. I don't recommend getting 5G if you use listen to lots of lossless and uncompressed files like I do. My 3G would freeze sometimes when trying to load the large files. 5G would play a few seconds of a large file and then skip once, and a second later, automatically goes to the next song. Not enough buffer or something wrong with the filling of buffer I guess. To resolve this, I got the 8gb Nano, 4gb not being enough for me. Problem solved. The Nano does not exhibit this behavior. I also noticed a bit more bass extension with low impedance earphones (under 35ohms), but there is less headroom to work with for higher impedance phones. I listen to ER-4S at about 85% volume on the 5G but at 95% on the Nano. Eagerly awaiting the new shuffle though...

 

[The Monkey]

Ok, here's what I'm thinking:

60 GB refurb 5G ipod AND a new 4GB Nano (My budget is $400).

Whaddya think?

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by honda I own both. 5G has a clearer sound and a bit more bass. I just got a new 8gb Nano though. I don't recommend getting 5G if you use listen to lots of lossless and uncompressed files like I do. My 3G would freeze sometimes when trying to load the large files. 5G would play a few seconds of a large file and then skip once, and a second later, automatically goes to the next song. Not enough buffer or something wrong with the filling of buffer I guess. To resolve this, I got the 8gb Nano, 4gb not being enough for me. Problem solved. The Nano does not exhibit this behavior. I also noticed a bit more bass extension with low impedance earphones (under 35ohms), but there is less headroom to work with for higher impedance phones. I listen to ER-4S at about 85% volume on the 5G but at 95% on the Nano. Eagerly awaiting the new shuffle though...

i noticed this on my 4G, too...it's probably a buffering problem with the large uncompressed files. every now and then - maybe every third or fourth track, there would be a slight pause when the disk was re-buffering or accessing the hard drive. pain in the butt, IMO...as honda said, the nano doesn't do this.

 

[desmoface]

I just bought a 4gb nano...figured if I was gonna spend $250 I may as well get the 30gb ipod...I have to admit that I think it sounds pretty damn good through the ksc75's and the sr60's. So far I'm having happiness feelings

Steve

 

[Evis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by honda I own both. 5G has a clearer sound and a bit more bass. I just got a new 8gb Nano though. I don't recommend getting 5G if you use listen to lots of lossless and uncompressed files like I do. My 3G would freeze sometimes when trying to load the large files. 5G would play a few seconds of a large file and then skip once, and a second later, automatically goes to the next song. Not enough buffer or something wrong with the filling of buffer I guess. To resolve this, I got the 8gb Nano, 4gb not being enough for me. Problem solved. The Nano does not exhibit this behavior. I also noticed a bit more bass extension with low impedance earphones (under 35ohms), but there is less headroom to work with for higher impedance phones. I listen to ER-4S at about 85% volume on the 5G but at 95% on the Nano. Eagerly awaiting the new shuffle though...

Before reading this, i was gonna get myself a 5G iPod 30G or 60G. this made me rethink >_<
So, Thru headphone jack, new nano > 5G iPod? with Amp, 5G > Nano?