WAV or Apple Lossless Encoder?
Marco: am I correct that Slimcenter converts all files to FLAC for transmission and the Transporter then de-compresses? How might that factor into the results? I'll have to check into that and get back to you. I don't know the answer, but had wondered myself what SlimServer does for transmission of the files via Wifi. Perhaps someone else knows. I'll check in with a Tranpsorter forum I'm posting to and see if anyone there knows. Good question. |
You should just rip a couple of your favorite CD's in both formats and compare them yourself. It's going to be you who's making the call as to which you prefer, not someone else. Personally, in the few comparisons I've made, I could not hear much difference. One important issue you should be aware of in making the choice between the two: WAV files are much more problematic in terms of the way iTunes is able to handle them. They do not allow conventional tagging as do virtually all of the other formats. Therefore all of the peripheral information that goes with the CD (title, songs, album art, etc.) are dealt with in a different way. If you have to rescue some WAV files from a backup, or if you want to add your own album art, or migrate your library from one HD to another, you may run into some very frustrating obstacles. I'm not enough of an iTunes geek to explain this in detail, but there's discussions about it here and elsewhere if you search. A good friend is bringing over a couple of files tonight that he was surprised at hearing the difference between...I have no clue what the upshot of that is, but I'll post something after I hear the two files if it is relevant. I think he ripped one as a WAV using EAC and then converted it to lossless in itunes. Regardless, I'd do it yourself and see if you hear a difference. Apple lossless will take up significantly less HD space. Whichever format you choose, purchase at least one additional hard drive and back up your library and keep it backed up as it grows. This will be money well invested. |
Peter - You'll have to come by and listen on my system. I confess that once I detected a significant difference in the single file I spent more time and attention comparing that file to the other two. Though I felt the other two sounded much more similar to each other I don't think I spent nearly as much time comparing those two to each other. The difference was far more obvious in that one file. Dtc - how do you compare bits in the files? What software (Mac) would one use to do that? |
Peter dropped off several files for me to listen to this evening. He didn't tell me much about them. I didn't have my server running at the time and our dogs were playing so we could not listen to them together, so I don't know if my observations are the same as his. I spent about thirty minutes going back and forth between various versions of a rip of Rickie Lee Jones, Bye Bye Blackbird off of "PopPop". I had one of my own which was a WAV ripped in iTunes using Error Correction. Peter provided three files. I could only locate two of the three as the third evidently did not have some critical tags and got sent into oblivion by SlimServer. So of the three files I had, one that he provided sounded significantly different. It seemed to have an improved soundstage with better imaging, more natural vocal presence, and deeper bass. The WAV I'd ripped via iTunes, and the other file he provided sounded quite similar. They did not provide as well defined a soundstage as the one file. I don't know if he was trying to trick me, but I phoned him with the file that stood out to my ears and in my system - he can confirm whether or not my observations paralleled his, or were different. There is no doubt at all that the files he provided sounded different from each other, and that one sounded better than my iTunes WAV rip of the same file. His version of PopPop is the same as mine, but obviously it is a different physical disc, ripped on a different computer. OK, Peter, was the file that sounded better to me the same as the one that you preferred? |
Peter is not the only one that has heard this anomaly by a long shot. I have received a number of reports of the same thing. The problem happens even when the data is streamed with WiFi to AirPort Express or AppleTV. Steve - I may be embarrassing myself here as I still don't know if I'm calling out the same file as Peter, but I did hear a clear difference and I am not using either Airport Express or Apple TV. I am, however using Wifi, but with a Modwright Transporter. As far as I know, Peter was probably using your products (a PaceCar and an Empirical modded Northstar DAC via USB), but he also could have used his Havana DAC...not sure. Neither of us is using an Apple device for conversion. Both of us hear a difference, though I don't know yet whether we agree on what that difference is. There is no doubt at all that the files he provided me sound different and that one sounds superior to the WAV rip I did in iTunes using error correction (which I'd always assumed would be the best means of ripping a file). |
Here's the info that SqueezeCenter provides on the three files Peter provided to me last night: EAC to AL conversion: Bitrate 634kbps VBR / Volume Adjust -6.97db / File Length 11,640,516 My WAV File: Bitrate 11411kbps CBR / File Length 25,279,340 Peter's AL file: Bitrate 634kbps VBR / Volume Adjust -6.97db / File Length 11,639,656 I don't think I have any software that compares file size, but Peter has PC's as well as Macs and may be able to compare bit-for-bit info. I listened again this evening and there's no doubt of the differences I heard last night. I also threw in the cut played via digital input from a CD transport to the same Modwright Transporter DAC. The EAC copy sounded most like the transport and I'd have a very difficult time telling the two apart. I could certainly tell the difference between the WAV and AL files, from the file playing off the disc. Just for an experiment I went downstairs to my office system, where my music library is stored. I played the same cuts on a much less revealing system, via iTunes. There I could not tell the difference between the three files, and like Brian, I found the whole thing frustrating after a short while. I don't think the difference is worth ripping your entire library over again. It most certainly is not worth it if you have to go in and label all the cuts on every CD manually, as it seems would be the case ripping to EAC and converting to AL as Peter described. Dtc - yes, streaming files via Wifi to Modwright Transporter. No idea how it handles ALAC conversion. It sounds damn good though. Interesting subject. I too thought bits are bits and that lossless meant just that. |
Way to go guys, you scared the sh#t out of Conedison8. That'll teach him. LOL. I'd be curious to compare a lossless file ripped on EAC that was ripped that way (retains all of the tags / song info - I assume that is possible), to the same song ripped to lossless in iTunes. I'm sure that it's probably already been done ad nauseum - anyone? As far as Conedison8's pissin' his pants, I'd reiterate that upstairs, on a far more resolving system with a Modwright Transporter on the front end I could clearly hear the difference. Downstairs, in my office system, which is very basic, with a MHDT Paradisea via USB, I would be very hard pressed to identify differences in the three files I was comparing. As I suggested from the very beginning of the thread, if you want to figure out which format to rip to then do these tests yourself, with some of your favorite cuts of music and sit down and compare them and see what difference, if any, you hear. The only drawback to doing this is that if your system changes dramatically towards the more resolving, your observations may change and you may end up wanting to re-rip your library. I'd agree with Peter's opinion that the difference isn't something that screams at you, though I found it immediately apparent albeit subtle. |
Drubin - I've checked my settings in SlimServer. I didn't realize you could change them. Currently they are set for the default, which I believe does convert Apple Lossless to FLAC...but I think leaves WAV in its native state. Here's what my settings are currently: Apple Lossless: FLAC > alac/flac WAV > alac WAV: FLAC > flac WAV > Native I'm involved in a thread on AudioCircle which is specifically around the Modwright Transporter. I've referenced this thread and am trying to get some further info and input from those who are using the MW TP, and will post anything relevant to this discussion here. Thanks for pointing that out - I too wonder what impact it has. There is also a beta version of SqueezeCenter (Slim Server's software) that I'm told is delivering better Wifi performance. I have not tried it. |
However i have found that wav sounds better on some transfers. When you do go with wav its harder to get the art work. Have you tried doing a blind test on those files you think sound better. I wonder how much our brains play tricks on us when we think we know what to expect. WAV is a format devised for PC's. I don't believe it allows for tagging the files with such information as artwork and song titles. All of that is done within the indexing provided by the software in the case of WAV. So, yes, it is a royal PITA to deal with WAV files if you want to attach artwork, or move them or restore from backup. I don't believe iTunes allows you to attach artwork yourself to a WAV file, though it can 'fetch' artwork for WAV files. I'm not sure how that works, but again, as I do understand it, it is strictly part of the software's indexing and those files are not tagged as are all the other formats (in which case the peripheral information can easily be added and moved around with the files). Peter suggested I try AIFF, which is an uncompressed format devised for MAC. I'm pretty sure it does allow for tagging (anyone?). Has anyone done any comparing between those two formats (probably in the archives but thought I'd check here)? Apple lossles does compress audio not much but it does. An Apple Lossless file is practically half the size of the same information in WAV format. That means you can fit almost twice as many CD's onto a hard drive that are compressed into AL as you would be able to if those CD's were ripped in WAV. |
I don't think it was the use of the adjective, "much," but the use of the word "not". Your post implied the compression was not significant. I'd suggest cutting the file size by almost half IS significant compression, especially given that you lose nothing in the process. Overall, I think we're on the same page though :-) Dtc - PopPop is a favorite album of mine, but certainly not a necessary component of the test. You could try it with any well recorded cut (preferably one with good soundstaging and detail). PopPop is certainly a great choice though. |
Jax2 - I have been wanting to get Pop Pop for a while so this seemed like a good time. A lot of the music I listen to (50s/60s jazz and female jazz vocalist) often does not have great sound stage, so I thought I would eliminate that variable and go with what you were using. Cool - I think you'll like her. Hey, if those are your tastes, here's another outstanding female jazz vocalist who made her name in the late 60's. The CD is from 2008 though: Norma Winstone, Distances on ECM. Recording is outstanding, as is soundstage. Highly recommended if you like that genre. |
Dtc - thanks for trying that out and posting. Your results do not surprise me given I could hear the difference clearly on one system and not on another. Peter's system, and my main system are highly resolving I'd say, whereas the system I could not hear the difference on is not. I think also the two systems where the difference was clear had much more effective jitter reduction active, and I'd guess that played even more of a roll. I'd be very interested to hear if anyone else gives it a try. Glad you enjoyed PopPop - yes it is a fun CD! I don't follow the Grammy's so wasn't aware that Winstone had been nominated - cool beans. Yes ECM artists and recordings reflect a consistently high standard of excellence. |
Jax2 - Have you compared the same tracks from a CD player to the same DAC you are using for iTunes? I found that on my system, there is little difference. Once I got to the state of being as good as my CD player, I have sort of stopped until I can try a setup that plays 24/192 material. Yes, I compared the EAC>Apple Lossless file to the actual CD it was ripped from spinning on my Oppo 983H fed into the digital input of my Modwright Transporter (same DAC used for the file comparisons). I could not tell any difference there, but there was the same marginal superiority to the straight Apple Lossless file in terms of soundstage and definition of the instruments in space. Haven't had TV hookup for 10 years and don't miss that tremendous waste of time it represented to me, so I know what you mean about the Grammys. There was a thread about that very subject here. IMO who cares...a highly 'political' popularity contest and most of the music they highlight just doesn't interest me much. Marco |
oh my thanks for reminding me of Pop Pop. I've had it playing much of the day and just ripped it using Apple Lossless, glad to hear some of you don't hear huge differences. I can handle re ripping everything to Lossless......... PopPop's a classic, and a whole lot of fun to boot. Hey, don't get me wrong, I would not say (and don't think I did say) I heard "huge" differences. The differences are immediate and apparent on my main system, but the degree of difference, no matter how immediate, would not have me scurrying to re-rip my library. I just had a friend over yesterday morning who I'd told about the files and said had to hear for himself. To make it more interesting I put a cover over the iTunes display so he could not read the file ID (which identifies the EAC file in this case). I played the two files for him and his obervations were that the two files definitely sounded different stating a clear preference for what was the EAC file. He described the one that was EAC>lossless as having a more extended bass and more clarity to vocals and instruments. He did not mention soundstaging, but his love of music, though very discriminating, has not yet been infected by Audiophilia Neurosis. He also did not go away wanting to re-rip his entire library (which is currently in AL). Dtc also sent me his files yesterday but I did not discover their arrival until after my friend had left, and I'd disassembled my system for an upgrade. Dtc - I'll load them to my music server and give them a listen and report what I hear. I'm sending my MW TP out for a modification of the power supply so when I get it back I'll take a listen to the two files you sent. |
I think I'm on the same page as you, Jim, though perhaps it's not coming off that way(?). I'm decidedly right brain, though, and am not prone to any desire for conducting such a highly objective scientific investigation in the whys and wherefores. My attitude is and always has been, see what works best for you, in your system, your room, your music, your ears. Nothing else really matters and if you make something else matter, like someone else's opinion for instance, you are wasting your time IMO. I just offered my take on an interesting comparison where the results surprised me. For the record I am not withholding any information on purpose, nor am I suggesting I have conducted a scientific or objective analasys here. I just did it for fun and interest and thought others may enjoy the stimulus of the conversation and doing their own test. As always, YMMV. I'd completely agree that niggling over minor gains is not my personal cup-o-joe, though I have good friends who are far more interested in doing just that and I respect that if it's what floats your boat. Anyway, if I've omitted any info that might interest you or others just let me know and I'm happy to share it. The version of iTunes I used is 8.0.2 I also interface via SlimServer (latest version) to deliver files to my MW Transporter (latest firmware). Peter, on the other hand, was using Empirical's Pace Car and l2S-modded Northstar DAC I believe. Peter has a far more scientific mind than I do - he's an hydro engineer and I'm a photographer / graphic designer...go figure. I don't know that he would have motivations of sharing that were any different than mine - sharing some interesting results with others who might want to try something similar, but he's far more prone to investigate such details in depth than I am. When I heard what was involved with what he did to rip the file that sounded better, it became even more silly to me as I cannot think of anyone who'd want to go through the process of inserting all the meta-data manually on an entire library of music for the kind of gains we're talking about here. It did interest me to hear, regardless, for reasons, as you point out in your post, that everything matters and could make a difference. It does encourage experimenting for yourself with the resources you have at hand. When anyone asks me what format to use I always tell them to try ripping the files several different ways and comparing them on the system(s) they intend to listen on and see if it makes any difference. The caveat to the test is that if you upgrade your system (especially your digital front-end), or your software changes, you may hear differences you did not hear before. Generically I'd recommend Apple Lossless, and that's what most of my library is ripped in. |
