[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 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:

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.

 

[shigzeo]

more like: often the players or decoders cannot handle the lossless properly. the sound should be in perfect circumstances exactly the same but the ipod or meizu or d2 will likely make mistakes and process the information incorrectly. for instance if you player sounds drastically different when playing different formats, it is not generally the format which is at fault but the decoder

 

[davidhunternyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif more like: often the players or decoders cannot handle the lossless properly. the sound should be in perfect circumstances exactly the same but the ipod or meizu or d2 will likely make mistakes and process the information incorrectly. for instance if you player sounds drastically different when playing different formats, it is not generally the format which is at fault but the decoder

Yes, John Atkinson alluded to this too in his comments back to me. It is unclear whether the processing he is referring to is the same as the decoder you have mentioned. He said there could be an anomaly in the processing of the lossless files back into uncompressed files. He hasn't heard it based upon his experience. Also, in his article, his measurements do not show any errors in play back.

 

[pladoh]

how do you get lossless music? or convert it or whatever,

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pladoh /img/forum/go_quote.gif how do you get lossless music? or convert it or whatever,

From Audio CD, download online, or other ways.

 

[ezzieyguywuf]

Very nice article. You said that you were in contact with it's author? How 'bout asking him to post some results for ogg? I'd like to see how it stacks up to mp3.

 

[shigzeo]

the last question has been done many times: go to hydrogenaudio and look for nearly any lossy compression public listening test. and getting results on subjective information from one person is akin to asking one person if a restaurant is good and accepting a good/bad story at face value. safety is in numbers.

 

[ezzieyguywuf]

Well I'm talking about those graphs and stuff that he had, that's what I want to see.

 

[BrahmaBull9813]

Quote:

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

IMHO, ALAC is a failing effort to compete with FLAC.

People continuously hear the word 'lossless' thrown around and relate it to the track maintaining 100% original quality. This isn't true, however. Most of the ripping software out there isn't dedicated to getting the data as close to 100% as possible.

Notice how I say, 'as close to'. Cause if you have a scratch or the like on a CD that's significant enough, it can definitely cause a deviation no matter whether ripped or played back through the original.

It's an analogy that I read a long time back. When brushing your teeth, you use water from the sink, although it's also readily available from the toilet bowl. And why? Although it's still the same water, which one do you think is more suitable for rinsing your mouth and brushing your teeth?

Same comparison -- would you rather use a software that's dedicated to maintaining 100% quality (or close to it -- sink) or a software that has multiple functions, with the ability to rip to lossless as well (toilet).

It's the same water, but the sink functions specifically for the benefit of sanitation/quality of the water while the toilet can function as multiple things, but won't have that sanitation/quality in its water.

ALAC isn't usually a component of the aforementioned software, while only FLAC is. Mind you, the article is right when it mentions that these formats are only containers, but regardless -- FLAC far trumps ALAC in terms of compression and backing by many communities.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrahmaBull9813 /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMHO, ALAC is a failing effort to compete with FLAC. People continuously hear the word 'lossless' thrown around and relate it to the track maintaining 100% original quality. This isn't true, however. Most of the ripping software out there isn't dedicated to getting the data as close to 100% as possible.

Ripper and encoder is two different things.

The word "lossless" refer to keeping the audio data inputted to the encoder 100% intact (no loss). If the inputted audio data is not 100% intact compared to the source audio CD then that is the fault of the ripper and not the encoder. That goes regardless if we talk about FLAC, ALAC, or ...

Hence both ALAC and FLAC is lossless, all the time.

 

[grokit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ripper and encoder is two different things. The word "lossless" refer to keeping the audio data inputted to the encoder 100% intact (no loss). If the inputted audio data is not 100% intact compared to the source audio CD then that is the fault of the ripper and not the encoder. That goes regardless if we talk about FLAC, ALAC, or ... Hence both ALAC and FLAC is lossless, all the time.

x2; (KISS)

 

[wgb113]

With hard drive space as cheap as it is now I'm not sure why anyone is still using a middle-ground like lossless.

I store AIFF versions of my CD collection on a 1TB hard drive that cost me less than even my cheapest headphones connected to my iMac and MP3 versions for syncing the entire library with my iPod on my MacBook Pro.

Bill

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgb113 /img/forum/go_quote.gif With hard drive space as cheap as it is now I'm not sure why anyone is still using a middle-ground like lossless. I store AIFF versions of my CD collection on a 1TB hard drive that cost me less than even my cheapest headphones connected to my iMac and MP3 versions for syncing the entire library with my iPod on my MacBook Pro. Bill

Even if storage space is cheap why waste it?
Since lossless compression is as the name say - lossless - you loose nothing by using it. But gain free storage space, and full metadata and artwork support.

But of course to each their own!

 

[jax]

Thank you for posting this, David. It's an interesting and more often misunderstood subject (by me as well).

For me, though the numbers aspect of it is interesting, the proof is always in the listening. I have not found differences in considering ALAC vs WAV vs AIFF that are ripped within iTunes....which I don't feel is very aggressive at error correction. BUT I have heard differences in files that were ripped in EAC and then converted from FLAC to ALAC or AIFF or WAV. I don't use WAV anymore simply because of the lack of support for metadata. I'm on a Mac and use AIFF exclusively now. I've been experimenting with MAXX ripping software and the juries still out for me on that.

 

[grokit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thank you for posting this, David. It's an interesting and more often misunderstood subject (by me as well). For me, though the numbers aspect of it is interesting, the proof is always in the listening. I have not found differences in considering ALAC vs WAV vs AIFF that are ripped within iTunes....which I don't feel is very aggressive at error correction. BUT I have heard differences in files that were ripped in EAC and then converted from FLAC to ALAC or AIFF or WAV. I don't use WAV anymore simply because of the lack of support for metadata. I'm on a Mac and use AIFF exclusively now. I've been experimenting with MAXX ripping software and the juries still out for me on that.

I use both platforms and have everything in ALAC, but have been trying to convince myself to do a final, master archive of all my discs in WAV on a FAT-formatted drive on the Windows side of iTunes, because I should also be able to access that information on a Mac, and Windows doesn't like AIFF? Does "lack of support for metadata" mean that iTunes can't do it's automatic library sorting thing with WAV, which I believe depends on metadata?

edit: I think Windows can deal with AIFF after all, and this is my new plan for archiving:
CD>iTunes/AIFF>Windows/FAT32>iTunes/ALAC>Mac/FAT32

I believe this will let me:
- Preserve metadata for iTunes library functions
- Lets me convert/export to other compressed or lossless codecs
- Lets me access the song files from both Mac and PC

I really want to get rid of my CD's, but this is a complicated decision and why I have stuck with ALAC for so long. I doubt I will need any other format, but as it's proprietary I want to have options.

Also need to look into this EAC you speak of; it is multi-platform, and iTunes-compatible? edit: No.