What's the highest quality iTunes ripping file format? (Lossless?)

[DrJon]

This is probably a common question and I see it mentioned as commonly known. But can't find the actual answer. I'm about to rip a bunch of CD's onto my hard drive. Which file format is true CD quality? Is it Apple Lossless or WAV or AIFF or...? Thanks.

 

[K2Grey]

They are all true CD quality, assuming they are ripped directly from CD (i.e. no mp3 transcode to WAV or stuff like that).

I'm not sure exactly what format goes into the DAC, but all of these formats end up being decompressed to the exact same thing in the end.

I would prefer to use FLAC though since it is more widely supported and easier to encode/decode.

 

[krmathis]

All three alternatives is true CD quality.
* WAV and AIFF are just two different containers, which in this case contain the uncompressed PCM stream.
* Apple Lossless are as the name say, Lossless. Meaning it compress the PCM stream without loss. The resulting filesize average around 60% of the original one.

So I say, go for Apple Lossless!

 

[DrJon]

OK, if WAV and AIFF are both full sized files, I'd think those would be best.

The long term plans are to hook the iPod with a digital out to my (quite fancy and expensive) home stereo system. So I really want the full, 100% CD quality in the files. Maybe that means WAV and AIFF?

 

[Brent Hutto]

There have been like half a dozen threads started in the last few days on this topic. If it is a "Lossless" format then th file is simply compressed with 100% of the full CD data present at all times, not a single bit is changed or missing. What comes out of the decoder at playback time is bit identical with what was read from the CD.

Honestly. Truly. No kidding. No problemo. Don't sweat it.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJon Maybe that means WAV and AIFF?

Why? Since Apple Lossless provide the exact same sound quality in 60% of the storage space.

 

[vapman]

Apple Lossless (ALAC) is my codec of choice. Lossless is lossless, and ALAC is much smaller.

 

[JWolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mckickflip Apple Lossless (ALAC) is my codec of choice. Lossless is lossless, and ALAC is much smaller.

if your iPod has had Rockbox installed on it, then forget ALAC as the compression is not all that good. FLAC at level 8 is better and will save you disk space. FLAC is also lossless. And if you do have Rockbox and don't mind lossy for some of your tunes, try Ogg Vorbis at qualty 9 or 10. You'll blow MP3/AAC away even at 320k CBR.

 

[DrJon]

Hmmm... so everyone is not coming back with one resounding answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Hutto There have been like half a dozen threads started in the last few days on this topic. If it is a "Lossless" format then th file is simply compressed with 100% of the full CD data present at all times, not a single bit is changed or missing. What comes out of the decoder at playback time is bit identical with what was read from the CD. Honestly. Truly. No kidding. No problemo. Don't sweat it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis Why? Since Apple Lossless provide the exact same sound quality in 60% of the storage space.

I'm just trying to learn these things.

It's not so intuitive that a file can have all the info but be 60% smaller. Compression, I guess. If I get a digital output from the iPod (not sure that's possible) I could get my preamp-processor to do the digital to analog conversion (DAC). Could that work with a compressed file? I guess the question would be if the iPod decompresses it to send it out or not.

Really, I'm just learning these things.

 

[KyPeN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJon It's not so intuitive that a file can have all the info but be 60% smaller. Compression, I guess. If I get a digital output from the iPod (not sure that's possible) I could get my preamp-processor to do the digital to analog conversion (DAC). Could that work with a compressed file? I guess the question would be if the iPod decompresses it to send it out or not. Really, I'm just learning these things.

It sure is intuitive, you just have to put 'compression' into an every day context.
Example:

i + i + i + i + i

Do we actually write that? No, we say 5i, a compressed form of the sum of 5 i's. Is actual audio/video compression much more complex than that? Absolutely, it is way beyond me, but that is an extremely simple example.

Also, without a dock, you won't get digital-out of your iPod. If you have a dock, the digital stream will be decompressed and will thus play in any device with a digital-in of the same type (optical to optical, etc).

 

[Brent Hutto]

DrJon,

I'm just learning a lot myself about using computers as my playback source. So I certainly wasn't being unkind (or at least not on purpose). Just emphatic.

The lossless encoders work just like a Zip program on computer data. They squeeze whatever redundancy is present out of the file and store it in a way that can be reconstructed perfectly. So it's really no more surprising that a WavPack music file is bit-perfect but 1/3-1/2 smaller than it is when you Zip and unZip an Windows executable and the program runs perfectly.

In fact, you could actually Zip and unZip a WAV file if you liked. The lossless codecs are optimized for the particular kinds of redundancy found in music (as opposed to text or PC binaries) so they squeeze it down more effectively and, more importantly, can be "unZipped" (so to speak) on the fly in the real time during playback.

So if you trust Zip, then you can trust FLAC. Plus the most popular lossless formats add ID information to store track and album names and so forth that can't be stored in a WAV file. What's not to love?

 

[Brent Hutto]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Hutto ...can be "unZipped" (so to speak) on the fly...

NOTE: The above pun is almost entirely unintentional.

 

[ChaseD13]

why cant there just be a sticky explaining this to people who are unable to read the word lossless

i dont mean to sound harsh, but read other threads. there are like 3 on each page related to this exact topic


you can compare wave to (insert lossless format here) and the data is exactly the same. if you were to rip a song to apple lossless and rip the same on to wav there would be NO difference in the data. you could have experts or whoever compare them but they wouldnt find anything. (im not tallking about a listening test, i mean the data is the same)

there wouldnt be any reason to have wav imo because it wastes like 40% space comap[red to most lossless formats.

 

[DrJon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Hutto I'm just learning a lot myself about using computers as my playback source. So I certainly wasn't being unkind (or at least not on purpose). Just emphatic.

No offense taken!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaseD13 i dont mean to sound harsh, but read other threads. there are like 3 on each page related to this exact topic

No problem. I've been reading through those threads and... Idunno... They often turn into big arguments as to whether or not there is a difference between WAV and lossless/ALAC. Some people claim they can hear a difference and others say that lossless means it's lossless.

I guess I understand it from a technical standpoint. KyPeN's analogy (5i's) is excellent. But still, might one hear a difference? Idunno. Some people say they can. Seems a little muddy because it doesn't make much sense. I'm not worried about an iPod and headphones. I'd never hear a difference. But if I were to hook up the files (via a computer or an iPod) to my $10,000 stereo system, might I hear a difference? (Oddly, I have the fancy stereo by no iPod yet. So I can't do the experiment myself.)

I want to start ripping CD's with that eventuality. Hard drive space is cheap. So maybe I'll go with WAV. It's probably a safe way to go. This is all probably more for peace of mind than actual audio quality.

 

[Brent Hutto]

The world is full of people with golden ears. A couple decades ago I could come pretty close to it myself but past a certain point it's impossible to know what you can actually hear and what you imagine hearing. You can actually make yourself a little nutso by obsessing on trying to perceive imperceptable differences.

When someone claims to tell you that an RS-1 sounds worlds better than a HD650, you pretty much have to take him at his word. Now maybe he can't really hear the difference but how would you prove or disprove it?

But the "lossless" threads that you've seen are a different kettle of fish. Anyone who claims to hear the difference between a WAV file and a FLAC/WavPack/ALAC file being played through the same equipment is either:

a) demonstrably and unambiguously incorrect
or
b) experiencing a malfunctioning piece of equipment

It's the functional equivalent of staring at the same wall with your left eye and then your right eye and claiming that the wall is changing color every time you change eyes. Either God himself is trying to mess with your head by changing the basic nature of reality or, more likely, there's something wrong with your eyes...

...but if you stare at that wall hard enough and long enough and you really, really, really want to believe it is changing colors then you will eventually convince yourself that it is changing colors. The trick is to "be careful what you wish for".