Peter, You have good ears. I have been ripping to Apple Lossless for a few years and I always thought they sounded the same as WAV or AIFF. But a few months ago I experimented something similar to what you did. I ripped some CDs to AIFF using iTunes, converted them to Apple Lossless, burned two sets of CDs: one directly from AIFF, another one directly from Apple Lossless. I than played them back from CD player. Some tracks from the Apple Lossless ones sounded thin and some with narrower soundstage and not as dynamic. It didn't happen on all the tracks but the ones did sound different were very obvious, even my non-audiophile friends can point that out immediately.
The Apple Lossless format didn't loss any information because when I converted them back to AIFF and compare them to the original AIFF files, they were identical. That lead me to believe that the one-step conversion process during CD burning may have introduced artifacts. |
I think everyone should try this at home and report the results... I was alerted to this by a leading manufacturer of PC audio related gear (who can identify himself), and found it to be true. Here is the test:
1) Burn a song from a clean CD to a wav file using EAC (this is now very easy to do, the software is free, downloadable, and very user friendly).
2) Import that wav file into Itunes and convert it to an apple lossless file (you need your default import setting set to lossless to do this).
3) Using the same CD, rip the same song directly into Itunes in lossless format using error correction.
4) Compare the two lossless files.
I've done this, and I was astonishly saddened to hear the results (because I ripped all my music in lossless). The lossless file generated through Itunes had less seperation b/t instruments (poorer imaging), sounded slightly less "alive", and (I believe) more "smearing" of the sound. I haven't done this yet, but I wonder if the same observation would be made through an Itunes generated WAV file vs. an Itunes generated lossless file.
I'm convinced this is real. I asked a non-audiophile friend to do the same listening comparison, told her nothing about what she was hearing, and she made the same observations. Marco (Jax2) will do the test tonight.
WE DO NEED DATA, AND I THINK THE MOST CREDIBLE SOURCE IS MULTIPLE PEOPLE DOING THIS COMPARISON. PLEASE DO YOURS TODAY :) - AND REPORT BACK WHAT YOU FIND. |
If those of you who think that Apple lossless and wav files sound different I would suggest the following - rip the wav file with one ripper and the Apple lossless with iTunes. Then convert the Apple lossless to wav and compare the files bit for bit - EAC and foobar both have facilities for doing this. If you use EAC for the wav file you need to account for the disk offset that EAC uses. When I have tried this I find that the files are bit for bit identical. Note - EAC wav files may be different if they are ripped from a damaged disk, but from a clean disk the 2 processes will produce the same bits.
I believe it is possible to still hear differences from different formats but it will be because of some other issue in the playback chain, not the bits in the file. For example, a wav file played with foobar and an Apple lossless file played with iTunes may differ based on how the 2 players deal with the audio subsystem - for example using ASIO to bypass KMixer with foobar but going through KMixer with iTunes. With the Wadia those differences should not be as important.
It is pretty easy to convert from one lossless format to another, so once you have ripped your library you should be able to change to other formats as you wish. Tagging is the main issue then, but that can be handled for a few hundred CDs. Many think EAC is the best ripper, although it can be slower than others. I found that EAC and iTunes produced the same files for the CDs I compared, but they were in pretty good shape.
I would suggest doing lots of experiments with a few CDs you know really well. Figure out what works best for you then do the rest of the CDs. Once you have a good rip in any lossless format you should never have to rip again. |
Hi Mark,
To answer your questions about why different yet equal file types exist: the world of IT is notoriously poor at deciding on a standard format and everyone wants it to be their own. Compression that occurs to a file such as WAV -> Flac could only have noticeable playback differences if you're streaming from a early 1990's computer with about 16 megs of RAM. People report differences for one psychosomatic reason or another, but those who do are rarely, if ever, conducting an actual scientific (ABX) test. This is the reason why most audiophiles don't use v2 or v0 even though they would not be able to differentiate it from lossless. Storage is cheap, and if you have money to burn, then by all means use FLAC, but the economy for those trained in engineering is not exactly doing well right now so I am spending those few hundred dollars on parts upgrades instead ;-)
For those who don't believe me and think they can tell the difference between two lossless formats, test it for yourself to see that they're identical if that is what will give you peace of mind. Then test a v0 MP3 and then a v2 while you're at it to realize how good audio engineering has gotten in the past few years. If you test it, however, make sure the volume is equalized and that you're not using replay gain. |
I use the Wadia 170i and was personally told by the head sales engineer at Wadia to use AIFF. My experience has been completely positive. The only time I hear a difference is when I change out the digital cables. In fact, when I use my "better" digital cable on the 170i, it sounds better than a lesser cable coming from my regular CD transport (Stealth Varig vs Audioquest). In addition, on some recordings, I prefer the 170i over the transport regardless of cables (not sure why it sounds better as it should not). This product is the real deal and not a hoax. The best $379 I have spent in years. How can you beat convenience without sonic compromise! My DAC is a Camelot Uther V2 Mk 4. Transport is a Sony DVP-S7700. |
If there are no differences between compressed lossless like Apple lossless, and noncompressed formats like WAV or AIFF, then why do the different formats exist(other than the PC/Mac dichotomy)? Is it strictly a file size issue to save space, or is the compression also affecting sound quality somehow? Most posts I read say that the uncompressed files sound better, although there is debate as to the degree. Given that disc space is quite inexpensive now, I do not know why you would bother using any compression if there is even a possibility that compression affects sound quality. If you are only compressing and not removing data, I would think that they should all sound the same. However, so many people report differences, you have to wonder what is going on. I am interested to see the comments of people on this. |
Oh and one more point: there are ZERO differences between any lossless formats in terms of sound quality. By no differences, I mean none whatsoever. You do not need to waste your time testing various lossless formats against each other. They are called lossless because NO INFORMATION IS MISSING meaning telling the difference is an impossibility.
To anyone who thinks they can tell the difference between lossless formats and wants to make a wager out of it, please let me know - I will even offer odds. You can even pick the recording and the equipment. |
Hello,
Before you decide on a lossless format, I would decide on whether or not you can tell the difference between it and a LAME encoded MP3 v0 file. Foobar2000 is a music playing client that has a built in utility for an ABX (A B Blind) test. It also has a nifty encoder for an MP3 v0. Despite what the masses on this wonderful forum will tell you, there is about a 99.99% chance that you will not be able to tell the difference between the formats unless you're an acoustic engineer or can hear a dog whistle. I'm not saying that you won't be able to hear the difference, but I would test it first using a science rather than hearsay. You could save yourself a lot of disk space.
For most people the level of transparency (the level at which they believe a format is lossless) lies between a 128kps MP3 and a LAME encoded v2 MP3. If you do the blind test and can tell the difference, I would use FLAC encoding. There are 0 auditory differences between any lossless format, but FLAC supports a large amount of metadata which makes it fairly easy to organize. FLAC also takes up considerably less disk space than WAV files. I would also use EAC (Exact Audio Copy) to rip your CDs.
Hope this helps! |
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. |
Hi Conedison. ...but from every thing that I've read, Lossless is the superior solution. Apple Lossless is a good solution if file size is the priority - Lossless files are quite a bit smaller. If having the best possible sounding files is priority then WAV is the best way to go but the files are larger. For what it's worth I use a Mac Mini and I compared Apple's version of WAV - AIFF - to Apple Lossless. To my ears the sound quality difference wasn't subtle. Apple Lossless sounded less immediate, less open and a bit truncated. Definitely appreciate you wanting to do this only once. I might suggest trying this for yourself: One CD (or even one song off of one of your CDs) ripped to Apple Lossless and then the same CD or song ripped to WAV. Compare for yourself. That's really the only way you'll know for sure in context of your listening values and system. Hope that helps. Cheers! Robert RSAD |
