[KlarkKentThe3rd]

A regular iPod can play WAV, AIFF and ALAC. It should be easy to ID the WAV if he put three files on random shuffle and let someone else ID the tracks after he called them out.

Nope nope nope! You need the exact same track, in several different formats, otherwise you will never hear any difference.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Nope nope nope! You need the exact same track, in several different formats, otherwise you will never hear any difference.

 
That's exactly what he proposed you do: convert the track to those several different formats.

 

[money4me247]

   
That's the tip of the iceberg. Look at all the crazy features of the iPod touch! (I have the iPod classic.)

...wowww. whattt black magic is this?!? hahah

 

[bigshot]

I'm beginning to doubt that this claim has been even carefully observed, much less carefully tested.

 

[Strangelove424]

That's a very kind way of putting it. 

 

[BlindInOneEar]

I've seen the claim that different lossless formats sound different from one another and from .WAV files debated on other forums.  The "explanation" given there is that the extra CPU activity required by decoding the lossless format is what makes the difference in sound. 
 
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just passing on other claims I've read. 

 

[esldude]

  I've seen the claim that different lossless formats sound different from one another and from .WAV files debated on other forums.  The "explanation" given there is that the extra CPU activity required by decoding the lossless format is what makes the difference in sound. 
 
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just passing on other claims I've read. 

And those claims have been tested in a number of ways.  That does not appear to have a bearing on the analog signal output.  The data doesn't change, the timing of conversion is not done by the computer, and noise in the audible ranges doesn't appear to be effected by CPU activity. 

 

[BlindInOneEar]

 
And those claims have been tested in a number of ways.  That does not appear to have a bearing on the analog signal output.  The data doesn't change, the timing of conversion is not done by the computer, and noise in the audible ranges doesn't appear to be effected by CPU activity. 

Got a cite for those tests?  I'd love to be able to pull that out to rebut some of the more outrageous claims I've seen. 
 
"Noise in the audible ranges..."  LOL!!!  Don't you know that human hearing exceeds the capability of any measuring equipment known to Man? 

 

[money4me247]

  And those claims have been tested in a number of ways.  That does not appear to have a bearing on the analog signal output.  The data doesn't change, the timing of conversion is not done by the computer, and noise in the audible ranges doesn't appear to be effected by CPU activity. 

 
Mmm... I'm not quite sure if that's true. CPU activity can definitely introduce random distortion and noise during playback. When I am listening to music with twenty other windows open, I can catch noise & stuttering & other random bad side effects.

 

[KlarkKentThe3rd]

   
Mmm... I'm not quite sure if that's true. CPU activity can definitely introduce random distortion and noise during playback. When I am listening to music with twenty other windows open, I can catch noise & stuttering & other random bad side effects.

My intuition tells me that is the truth.
 
My judge will be time.
 
 
P.S. On one of the forums I searched, one poster made the claim that the AIFF format is designed in a way to emphasize certain frequencies to make vocals sound better. No, I don't have a link.

 

[BlindInOneEar]

   
Mmm... I'm not quite sure if that's true. CPU activity can definitely introduce random distortion and noise during playback. When I am listening to music with twenty other windows open, I can catch noise & stuttering & other random bad side effects.

1.  "Noise and stuttering & other random bad side effects" are a far cry from what  KlarkKentThe3rd is claiming to hear.  KlarkKentThe3rd is claiming that .wav files are "warmer" and that lossless files are "colder," whatever that might mean.  KlarkKentThe3rd, could you try to be a bit more specific in what it is you are hearing, and try not to use hackneyed audiophile cliches when doing so? 
 
2.  Twenty open windows is a far greater load on a CPU than expanding a lossless file.
 
3.  For any computer whizzes out there: where exactly does "expansion" take place in the play back chain?  Does it actually have any effect on what the sound card (or chip) exports to the DAC? 

 

[Strangelove424]

   
 
P.S. On one of the forums I searched, one poster made the claim that the AIFF format is designed in a way to emphasize certain frequencies to make vocals sound better. No, I don't have a link.

 
Lots of misinformation going on. The word format is ambiguous. AIFF and WAV are not codecs, they are containers or "wrapper"s. They only hold data, they do not order it, compress it, minimize it, or otherwise alter it in any way whatsoever. The data they hold is raw PCM, an exact mirror of the CD. I'm telling you from years of personal experience on both OSX and Windows platforms that there is no difference in playback.  

 

[bigshot]

  I've seen the claim that different lossless formats sound different from one another and from .WAV files debated on other forums.  The "explanation" given there is that the extra CPU activity required by decoding the lossless format is what makes the difference in sound. 

 
The lossless file formats he is claiming are inferior are ones specifically designed for his machine (Mac / AIFF, ALAC). I've had Macs with audio capability going all the way back to the 8500 AV, and every one of them has been audibly transparent both in capturing AIFF audio and playing it back. The 8500 didn't do ALAC I don't think, but when I got my Mirror door PowerPC, it did and it was audibly transparent in and out too.
 
If he is actually hearing a difference, my guess is that it is a problem with his computer not operating properly and the problem is intermittent, so he has guessed what the cause was (incorrectly). But I think that is the least likely option. It's more likely that he just hasn't compared carefully enough to eliminate bias.

 

[bigshot]

  On one of the forums I searched, one poster made the claim that the AIFF format is designed in a way to emphasize certain frequencies to make vocals sound better. No, I don't have a link.

 
Well, you can pretty well be guaranteed that the person who said that doesn't know diddly squat about it.

 

[KlarkKentThe3rd]

   
Well, you can pretty well be guaranteed that the person who said that doesn't know diddly squat about it.

Do you? Please explain how one uncompressed lossless format differs from another.