Ah, a computer and information science point here: WAV does
not have more information than ALAC or FLAC. It occupies more bits, but that's because the density of the information is lower. If you ignore the additional information that an ALAC or FLAC has, purely because the definition of the container (file) for the data allows for tags, the information (music) content of a WAV, ALAC and FLAC is identical. The proof is that you can convert endlessly between all three formats, and the bits representing the music in each of the three formats won't change. No information is lost.
You may ask yourself: how can the files always be smaller and still have the same information? The answer is that they can't. There is NO lossless compression method that can take any arbitrary input file and always create a smaller file. Lossy compression? Sure. Lossless? No way. It takes 5 minutes to prove this with simple math on a whiteboard. The 5-second version is that there are fewer possible files if they're smaller (there are 2 to the power n possible files of n binary bits size), so the decompressor wouldn't know which of the many larger files is the right one.
FLAC and ALAC work because they're dealing with inherently inefficient data representation in WAV (or AIFF....same thing, different clothes). If you took a set of random bits and threw them at FLAC or ALAC, they'd fail, or "compress" the file to one that's larger than the original. Most compression algorithms are smart enough to declare defeat and just give you back the original file.
An an aside, when I was a venture capitalist (halcyon days), I saw a number of companies promising lossless compression of all arbitrary files. One even claimed that you could use their technology to compress a 600MB CD to 60KB, then again to 6 bytes, and then reverse the process losslessly; THAT was an uncomfortable meeting. I turned them all down, because they were wrong, sadly misguided, nuts, or worse. Anyone with college-level information science can do the 5 minute proof mentioned above. And, no, this isn't like the people who "proved" that you can't fly faster than sound; the math on compression is much more solid than that: Claude Shannon, one of the fathers of information theory, was a very smart dude.
Lossy compression has its place. The HD movie you watch on your TV is missing over 99% of the bits in the data stream. If you've worked in compression, you can see the compression artifacts (and hence working in compression spoils your enjoyment of TV forever), but it's amazing how good it looks. JPEG performs similar, although less severe, miracles on pictures. Most MP3s throw away 90% of the information, but still sound ok to many people.
All the above assumes that the FLAC/ALAC software you're using isn't buggy and doesn't destroy your data. A few tests of compress/decompress and comparing against the original should convince you.
Is that enough talk to talk you out of WAV and embrace the joys of tagged files, Mike? And, to repeat a prior post: if WAVs make you more comfortable, and sound better to you, go for it. I'm not snickering behind your back. There are enough unknown variables in how we perceive sound, both psychological and physiological, to make your perceptions real and something that I honor and respect. You can always tag the files with "sidecar" files (same name, different extension) or with music software that tracks all of this in a database, like J River. It's safer and easier to manage if the tags are in the files, but some software doesn't keep all of the tags in the files. For example, iTunes doesn't keep ratings or last played date in the files. You can torture it into doing so with scripts and using/abusing other tag fields, but it's not convenient. As always, no perfect answer, and lots of tradeoffs....
Quote:
You are a BAD man, Grokit
. Actually, an iPad is in my future, but really way down the road. It does look purdy though.
Right now it's between FLAC & WAV. I'm learning about what tags are and what their value brings and how each format stores tags and how other applications relate to the formats' storage. Basically, I'm looking for a good reason to get talked out of WAV which is my default because it has more information and that's just me. However, as I learn more, tagging seems to be important down the road, and since sonically FLAC = WAV, the more flexible format seems the way to go.
I find rectifier tubes have the least impact on SQ....first power, then driver and finally rectifier tubes. I do have a NOS Sylvania 5U4G and a pair of 6SN7s coming in next week. This week I did buy a pair of Electro-Harmonix Gold 6SN7s and a very good step up from the stock RCAs. I was always impressed with their 12AX7 tube and they have not disappointed. Of the new issue tubes, I am a big fan of EH and Gold Lions. They really hold their own next to some of the NOS tubes. I also picked up a 1950s winged "C" SED 5U4G. So far the new driver and rectifier tubes have yielded positive results over the stock tubes.
