WAV or Apple Lossless Encoder?

Jax2 ... cool.

I'd not want tmy input to come off as adversarial at all... just thru reading the entire post on this thread I felt little true experimentation was going on... and for just what, exactly?

I sure do agree too that trying a few paths, regardless the endeavor. Like with tubes or SS... Panel or cone speakers, analog vs. digital... etc.

I've gone thru so many paths digitally speaking in conjuction with the personal confuser my hairs are turning grey. I don't mind it turning color, just so long as it doesn't turn loose.

It gets interesting making the changes here and there for a while or until it gets frustrating foraging thru the minutia for maximum gains. I'm quite happy for those who pursue them and more so for those who share their trials. For myself where ever I can manage a greater gain or bang for the buck, that's where I'll tend to hover... but ever remain open to another way to do things if it's for the better... not simply for different... and then even that degree of improvement is debateable.

It's funny that the idea of "What's the best..." always winds up being decided by the prompter of the query and not by those attendant to it... or the numbers involved.

I sometimes wonder why we don't ask, "Why did you choose a ???" instead, and look more at the philosophy behind the choice than the item itself as being greater or lessor a thing... or as the ONLY way to proceed to better sound.

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.

Hi all…

I’m a bit tired and not feeling well, but this thread has got my attention and I thought to mention some things which seemingly have been passed over somehow and I’m unable to let go of just now.

Indeed there are several immediately notable variables taking place here.

DTC corrected a couple terminology and format ones regarding the diffs from reduced file size and compression visa vi FLAC.. ALAC.. and WAV/WAVE. None of which are compressed… albeit some are indeed reduced in size.

It seems to me the more noteable issue is the ignorance or dismissal of the amount of jitter introduced by the CD or DVD rom in the personal confuser being used, right off. Not to mention the varying types or brands and models, from machine to machine, system to system. Their ages, use, ripping speeds, cpu’s, bus speed, etc.

Also error correction vs. jitter. Naturally they aren’t the same thing. A spec or scratch on a disc vs adherence to a specific rotating speed and reading accuracy.

Only just recently did Jax2 mention the use of any player aside from iTunes… and which version of iTunes… BTW, is/was being used?

All of this is far from anything resembling scientific experimentation or analysis. In such instances there must be controls. Identicals. Consistencies.

I’m surely not taking anyone to task about that bit either, just being as objective as I’m able to in an effort to make some sense of the controversy here.

Finding results that vary from one members trials to another therefore isn’t too eye opening IMO. What I do find remarkable is any fact supporting similar processes being followed and yielding similar results…. Given all the aforementioned variables just noted, and indeed there are others I have not pointed out. Such as burning these files back to CD… what CDR’s were used? At what speed? Did everyone use the same CD ROM or combo drive? Transport? DAC? Audio rig?

Of course not. Far from scientific… but it’s Fun… just not definitive.

Another thought to throw into this is the ‘plug in’ aspect. ALAC (m4a & m4p) FILES CAN BE PLAYED BACK USING PLUG IN CODECS other than the proprietary ones afforded the user by iTunes, Quicktime, MC, FUBAR & EAC. Albeit iTunes doesn’t allow for such a thing. Other media players do however.

If you would care to improve upon the quick time engine’s handling of the ALAC files (m4a) try the Direct Show filter, or base ‘plug in’, available as a free online downloaded item.

There’s a bunch of algorithms out there, just as there are several mp3 plug in’s like LAME & MONKEY’s, etc. Although the latter are based on the Frahauffer codec design, they aren’t exactly the same. The AAC file type adds yet another layer to the compression making it an mp4… vs. mp3.

Also what driver are you all using? ASIO? Which one? BTW were all the interfaces as well, identical? Coax? USB?

Merely opting for different aSIO drivers can and does change/improve the sound.

I’ve been playing with, trying out, changing file formats, pc’s, codecs, media players, sound cards, DACs, hard disc formatting, pc cooling, isolation, power line filtering/conditioning, differing ROM drives, ripping speeds, etc., etc., etc., for about 8 + years now. Just recently did I bite the bullet and decide to go HDD digitally based with my source, for 95% of intended playback.

Here’s what I’ve found out so far…. Everything matters.

Change something… something changes.

Changed the media player, the sound improved or just changed.

Same thing with all else. DACs, interfaces, media players, plu ins, and yeah… file types. And depending upon the ‘file type’ and/or player, (predominately) things could be well improved right then and there!

Even in a one box player rig, the CDR does make a diff when compiling a CD.

Any file format one wishes to use can be optimized for playback in one’s system…. Yeah… even mp3. media Center offers the LAME & FLAC CODEC as standard equipment for ripping. It also uses error correction but MC calls it secure ripping instead. FUBAR & WINAMP allow plug ins too.

If WAV/WAVE sound best to you but you want the art work and ability to transfer them to another computer’s database, and keep tag info… try out ey the WAVpack codec… it incorporates tagging info while retaining the uncompressed WAV file type as the media audio format.

The attraction of itunes is great for sure as it is way easy to use and sounds pretty good straight off… but it’s no end all be all in media players. If you’ve tried a few then you know. If not, then you should try a few other players.

Another consideration in choosing a file format is versatility. Cross platform playback. You might go with a different platform or OS down the road perhaps.

Size however, is becoming less and less the problem…. And tagging info is mighty important too. Art work or no art work.

Another item is bit rot. Leaving bits on a magnetic disc for extended periods allows for decay of the file, and consequent loss of some resolution, or gasp! Loss of the file due to it’s corruption. Just copying the folders to another partition on the drive or to another hard drive periodically, will overcome that pitfall. Annually works for me.Sooner aint’ a bad idea neither.

What accounts for why we hear or don’t hear a diff from one file tuype to another is IMO a moot point. Especially given the degree of diff one might hear.

The more important aspect I feel is which file type is best for you, and what can be done to optimize it for playback in your system… now… and down the road.

Waffling or stressing over a few MB or a 5% gain in resolution, is silly when you get right down to it.

Think more so about the new & upcoming formats of higher res file types… I suspect these are going to be inherently larger anyways. We all will want to accommodate them, right? Sure.

I’m personally happy with ripping CDs via either iTunes, MC, or EAC. The latter ones I like a bit more for the resolution and detail in the end product. Between AIF, WAV & FLAC, I’ll go with FLAC OVERALL. Rip to WAV with iTunes and convert if needs be.

AS the J River MEDIA CENTER sounds best to me I seldom if ever use iTunes any more.

There again however is another issue… conversion. Just how jitter free and error free is the conversion process and the converted file? Was it cached and checked for accuracy at any time in the process?

Beats me. Don’t care really. I try not to convert anything anyways.

If you rip CDs right out of the packet, error correction isn’t a major deal… jitter is. Funny how as degrading as jitter can be in audio playback it’s ignored with the software rippers, & ROM drive technologies, themselves.

I say use which ever file type you like or need, depending upon your converter/hardware, and improve upon the sound tangibly, tactily, with better devices, cabling, etc., etc..I doubt seriously anyone here who is using whatever file type is missing out on much, given the looks of their rigs… or at least from what I’ve seen thus far.

At least think more about the DAC - CODEC – or player being used, than the file type (lossy or lossless) itself. You’ll be better served. IMHO

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.

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.........
Yes that CD is great fun - really enjoyed it, lots of detail over a very modest system - the used Vandersteen 1c's I got here on Audiogon and a new NAD 326 integrated amp and NAD 545 cd player....fabulous for the money!

Now if I can just get my new Squeezebox to work, of course, Murphy's Law for me means that our wireless router isn't accepting it and we're waiting on the Logitech folks to call with recommendations.....
but in the meantime, there's the NAD and Pop Pop!

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

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.

Unfortunately, on the Grammy show they play stuff I am not interested in listening to. Not sure if they ever played any of the jazz on the show - only got through about 20 minutes before turning it off.

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.

Last night, I finally got to compare ALAC files ripped with EAC and iTunes - used test and copy to generate the EAC wave files and used error correction with iTunes (V 8.0.2.20). I used iTunes to convert wave to ALAC. My wife(she has better ears than I) and I separately compared several tracks playing through iTunes, including Bye Bye Blackbird from Pop Pop. We both originally thought we could hear differences but in the end neither of us could reliably identify differences. If there were differences they were too subtle to identify reliably. Interesting, the differences we both originally thought we heard were not with soundstage but with the amount of air around notes and the attack in the treble. Unfortunately, iTunes does not have an ABX comparison routine which is very useful for finding subtle differences. I also played the same tracks through my CD player (output to the same DAC) and compared them to iTunes and again any differences were too small to identify reliably.

I also tried comparing the same tracks through J River Media Center 13 using flac files. I thought the J River was a little more dynamic but it is hard to compare different players in real time. Any differences with iTunes and J River were small at most, but I need to do more work on that.

My system is not overly detailed - it is set up as a smooth more "musical" system. Classe CP-65 pre, Levinson 432 amp, Sonus Faber Cremona speakers with Transparent Ultra cables. CD is Classe CDP 10 and DAC is Musical Fidelity A3.24. My USB to optical converter is a Turtle Beach, which is the weakest link in the system. I am sure the jitter will come up, but it does sound very similar to my Classe CD player, so I do not think it is hurting very much. Also, I did prefer my PC source to a McIntosh MC301 CD player (in an all McIntosh system), which is a pretty good player. I will probably replace the USB converter with a 24/192 one in the future - probably using J River.

Moving to J River will mean I probably will start using EAC so it is easier to generate flac files. But I see no reason to re-rip my existing libary at this point.

I would be happy to post my Bye Bye Blackbird files to a ftp server (if I can find a reliable one) if anyone would like to try my files.

Pop Pop is a fun CD. Still need to do some critical listening. I was aware of the Norma Winstone CD since it was nominated for a Grammy, along with Karrin Allyson's Imagina and Stacey Kent's Breakfast on the Morning Train, two vocalists that I really like. I will have to get a copy of Distances. ECM always does a great job on their CDs.

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.

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. I recently did a comparison of my PC with a McIntosh 301 CD with top end McIntosh equipment - MDA 1000 DAC, pre, tube power and speakers. Used 301 as a transport so both player and PC went through the DAC. On a lot of my music there was little difference between my PC and the McIntosh 301. However my dealer pulled out some of his favorite test tracks and then we cound definitely hear a soundstage difference. My PC was more forward and a little more detailed that the McIntosh CD player. I liked the PC, he liked the McIntosh. The differences were comparable to listening to CD players from different vendors.

I did try comparing the bits of some EAC rips converted to Apple lossless and then back to wave. Using EAC to compare the original and the twice converted file EAC reported no differences in the files. Also tried several tracks ripped with iTunes to Apple lossless and then converted to wave by iTunes. Again, EAC compare showed they were the same as the EAC ripped track. Next step is some detailed listening which I hope to do this weekend.

Does anyone know of a free ftp server site that allows people to exchange large files? There used to be ones that you could just access through a browser without having to set up server software, but I have not used one in a while. That would make trying different files easier.

Brianmgrarcom, I will say this both wav and apple lossless are the two best way to import your cd collection. By the way 99.99% equals 100%

That means wav is copying 99.99% of the information on the cd disk and apple lossless doesn't because the file size is less than half of wav. So apple lossless is not really lossless because it is cmpressed.

Armyvet, Dtc explained what I was getting at very well, much better than I. Your comments above are the "issue" I was getting at as incorrect.

First, why is .wav only copying 99.99% and not a full 100% (To me this is analog thinking.)

Second, as Dtc stated so well, the Apple Lossless file size may be smaller but it has no less information.

Brian

This debate about which encoder is better wav or apple lossless could go on forever. The best thing to do is to import your cd in both wav and apple lossess and listen for yourself. I just prefer wav encoder for my cd transfers, to me i can sometimes here an audible difference. Wav and apple lossless are both hi quality encoders.

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.

WAV and AIFF are uncompressed. Yes wav is pc based and aiff is mac based both are perfect pitch. I would go with aiff because its mac based, their for the art work is easy to get.

The process that Apple lossless uses to "compress" the file reduces the file size but not not delete any data. Think of it like a ZIP file, which reduces the size of a file but when upzipped the data is exactly the same as you started. Apples lossless and flac do a similar process. There are well known algorithms for doing this type of "compression". They look for patterns that they can store in less space. So the "compression" uses less space but maintains all the original data. When the file is played back, the file is "de-compressed" to its orignal form. The earlier discussion in this thread is about possible subtle differences in Apple lossless encoding, but that is a different issue that the 50% difference in file size.

My copy of Pop Pop arrives today and I will doing some listening this weekend.

My mistake instead of using the word much for my adjective i should have used significantly more.

Jax2 (apple lossess does compress audio) I was trying to explain that to Brianmgrarcom who thinks that i don't know what i am talking about. Apple lossless file is half the size of the same information in wav format. That mean wav is copying 99.99% of the information on the cd disk and apple lossless doesn't because the file size is less than half of wav. So apple lossless is not really lossless because it is cmpressed. Thanks, Jax2

Usarmyvet91 - I think what Brian may have been pointing out was that it saves a significant amount of space (correct me if I'm wrong Brian). You had stated that it "does not compress audio much" which also puzzled me since saving almost half the space is significant.

Brianmgrarcom Let me simplify for you. When you import or transfer your cd collection via apple lossless it takes up less space than acc of the same transfers. What's the reason for this? Because apple lossess compresses the music. It does this to save space. Do it for your self and check to see if i am right. I do know what i am talking about, perhaps "you talk not of what you know"

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.

Apple lossles does compress audio not much but it does.

You talk not of what you know.

Well on paper you would think wav would sound better. Wav is a total cd transfer with out any compression. Apple lossles does compress audio not much but it does. I have tried both and it's hard to tell the difference between them. However i have found that wav sounds better on some transfers. When you do go with wav its harder to get the art work.

thanks guys, I'll start ripping!

Peter is correct Audiowoman. The option you speak of is designed to convert a full size file, like a .wav, to Apple Lossless.

Brian

Wishful thinking. You can never recover information that you lost when compressing the files into MP3 or other lossy formats.

You guys are leagues ahead of me in this, but please take time out to answer a woman's question regarding this, new to me, technology.

We have ripped our cd's to itunes at 256...now we want to go to Apple Lossless...I think this necessitates re - ripping everything right? but, my partner noticed that you can convert itunes to Apple Lossless, click on an "album", hit convert, it does something and then says that it is now 33 mb rather than the original 9 mb for example. Does this mean that the files are now Apple Lossless, or is this wishful thinking and we need to get busy re ripping ???
Thanks for any and all responses folks. I am learning tons on this site!

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.

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.

I want to try the experiment outlined by Peter_S, Dtc, et al, which Steve had urged me to do weeks ago. In my case, I can rip on a PC using EAC, but would then want to move the file to a Mac for iTunes playback since that is my music server platform. Seems to me this hardware/OS platform change introduces a significant additional variable. Have others of you crossed platforms in your tests, or kept it all on PCs?

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'm a total adherent to Dtc's call for good experimental design, which is woefully lacking in so much of what we do in audiophile land. I don't mean abx, just good isolation of variables.

For everyone who is concerned about my nerves and well-being, if this was the biggest concern that I had in life, it could be a problem.

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.

Way to go guys, you scared the sh#t out of Conedison8. That'll teach him.

Look, I am a EE with over 30 yeard design experience. We can debate the theory and the science until the cows come home. The fact is there are differences here, and comparing .wav to .wav files does not explain it.

One person that did this experiment repeated it with a Transport rather than the Pace-Car reclocker and concluded that if the jitter is very high, you really can't tell the difference. It's when the jitter gets really low that the difference is obvious. The Pace-Car is only a FIFO, it does not change the data in any way.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Dtc - a few responses to your most recent post:

"I would like to understand just what extra information is in an ALAC file that degrades its sound. Any explanation or references to this?"

Steve will have to answer this. I was merely repeating what he told me.

If a given player playing an ALAC file and playing a WAVE file produce different sounds, it is a big leap to believe that the only cause of this could be the ripping process. It may well be how the player somehow handles the different formats.

Note that both Marco and I are independently hearing a difference in sound between two files of the same format (ALAC) that were generated differently. This cannot be how the player (itunes) handles the format. BTW - I am understanding that itunes does the conversion from ALAC to uncompressed, and sends the 16/44.1 stream to my Pacecar.

My background is scientific research and in computer science. So, when I hear that there are differences in 2 approaches I want to know why. And I tend to get picky about experimental design. In looking at the results that people are reporting I see lots of unaccounted for variables. The experiments need to be designed to eliminate those variables.

I am so with you on that. I too am in a science/engineering field.

My suggestions, although it will take time, is to
1) Compare the sound of ALAC files ripped with iTunes (using the error correction mode) and ALAC files that were ripped to WAVE by EAC and converted to ALAC by iTunes - both played with iTunes (or your favorate player).

This is exactly what I did that started my entry into this thread after hearing the difference. Now - I'd like to ask you to do the same thing! I know you've made bit/bit comparisons of the WAV's - but try doing this and listening and tell us what you think. To eliminate another variable - try the song Marco referenced above. Or, if you have an FTP site, I can send you both versions. Would you be willing?

Unfortunately, to do your second method I'd need my CD, which I accidentally left at Marco's the other night. It will take me a while to get it back. But please, let us know what you find out if you make comparison #1 above (as Marco noted, you must have a sufficiently resolving system).

Finally - personally, I would try to re-rip music as I listen to it, not as a big project. BUT - I don't yet know what will be the right ripping procedure to accomplish this. Part 2 of this exploration!!!

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.

I experimented with two tracks, one from Diana Krall and one from Keb' Mo'.

I already had these on my iPod in Apple Lossless, I use a Wadia iTransport.

I copied these two tracks using EAC as .wav files and copied them into iTunes. I then used the iTunes tool to convert them to Apple Lossless, but keeping the .wav version also, giving me 3 copies to of each; I also copied the Diana Krall in for a 4th version, this using iTunes creating a .wav version.

In playing these I was thinking there was a slight difference, with the original iTunes Apple Lossless version being very slightly of lesser quality, although I played the cuts many times questioning this. This surprised and disappointed me. Then I realized the "original" version I created was done back before I started using error correction and wondered if that could be the cause of any difference. So I replaced the original with a newer Apple Lossless version with error correction on. My conclusion is that I can not hear any difference.

Maybe my song choices weren't the best, maybe you ears are better or maybe _____________, you fill in the blank. If I get a chance this weekend maybe I'll give yet another listen. When doing these comparisons it becomes quite annoying.

Brian

Peter_s and Steve - I would like to understand just what extra information is in an ALAC file that degrades its sound. Any explanation or references to this? I know that this is a proprietary format, but if the claim is that there is some extra data in it, it would be great to have some idea or what that is and how it is used. References?

Jax2 - I am not a MAC user, sorry. But EAC and foobar both have comparison routines in them for wave files. Do I read your post correctly that you are using a MAC to stream to a Transporter? The Transporter is yet another wrinkle in the comparison - not sure exactly what it uses for ALAC decoding.

I really think that concluding that iTunes is inferior for ripping files (at least from relatively clean disk) based on these observations is premature. I, and others, have ripped files with iTunes, converted them to wave and they are EXACTLY identical to wave files produced from EAC - every bit is the same. And a 50 MB wave file has a lot of bits! Two wave files with exactly the same bits cannot sound different when played by the same player. If somehow they do sound different, then something else has happened in the process. I just do not see how iTunes ripping can be inferior when it produces exactly the the WAVE file as EAC? Incidently, I do believe that EAC can do a better job on a damaged disk - but of course none of us has those :)

If a given player playing an ALAC file and playing a WAVE file produce different sounds, it is a big leap to believe that the only cause of this could be the ripping process. It may well be how the player somehow handles the different formats.

My background is scientific research and in computer science. So, when I hear that there are differences in 2 approaches I want to know why. And I tend to get picky about experimental design. In looking at the results that people are reporting I see lots of unaccounted for variables. The experiments need to be designed to eliminate those variables. My suggestions, although it will take time, is to

1) Compare the sound of ALAC files ripped with iTunes (using the error correction mode) and ALAC files that were ripped to WAVE by EAC and converted to ALAC by iTunes - both played with iTunes (or your favorate player). If you are using something other than iTunes, you should probably use the same conversion software as your player uses. It is hard to do bit compares on these ALAC files, unfortunately. Waves are much easier.

2) Compare the sound of WAVE files ripped with iTunes (directly to WAVE) and WAVE files ripped with EAC. This should probably be done with iTunes as well as with some other player like foobar or J River. Foobar is a good choice since it has a ABX comparison function to allow for blind testing. When I have done the ABX comparisons with foobar with EAC and iTunes produced wave files, I cannot reliably tell the differences - although I admit I have not done it a lot of times and blinding test is an art unto itself. If you have not done it, give it a try. It is a interesting experiment.

3) Repeat 2) with files ripped with iTunes into ALAC and then converted to WAVE by iTunes (rather than ripped to WAVE directly).

Its important to compare apples and oranges and to be sure to eliminate outside influences on what is being tested - in this case ripping accuracy.

Now off to listen to some music.

Brian - when you set up EAC you specify a database for it to check (online) to identify well song names. When you insert your CD, atleast for me, the songlist did not have the information, and I had to push a button to "get information" to fill in the list. That said, if you rip a WAV file in EAC, it does not have tag information that carries with it to itunes. When you import it into itunes, the song name will be retained (it will be the same as the file name), but all other tag information will be lost.

Clearly, this is not a conveniant way to import music to itunes. You've identified the next question - and the very important question - how do you get the best quality while still working within an itunes environment. If Marco's observation that the itunes ripped WAV file didn't sound as good as the EAC sourced ALAC file, then itunes is not a preferred ripping program!

Anyhow - please do the experiment anyway. The goal is to confirm that itunes ripping is not as good as other methods. Once that is confirmed, we can look for work arounds. Even though those who have listened so far all hear this, the number is few, and it would help to have more confirmation. Thanks, Peter

I am going to experiment with Peter's suggestion but I have a question. I downloaded EAC today and copied a couple music files. When I insert a CD, EAC lists all the tracks but no information, no album name, artist name, track names, etc. Do I have something set wrong? This would be VERY tedious if I had to type this all in myself.

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?

First answer - Marco, the file that you preferred was indeed the one prepared in EAC by ripping to wave, and then transported over to itunes and converted to Apple Lossless (ALAC). I detect a "significant" difference as well - maybe 10-20% improvement in sound quality, and I consider that to be a lot. What about your findings surprised me even more was that you found the itunes ripped WAV file of the same song similar to the (inferior) itunes ripped ALAC file, compared to the EAC ripped (and itunes converted) ALAC file. This suggests that itunes rips with both the WAV and the ALAC format are inferior. The third file I gave you would have lost its Tag information, but I believe was still imported to itunes. It is an EAC ripped WAV file. If you can find it (using "modification date" field) and rename it, you can directly compare your itunes ripped WAV file to the EAC ripped WAV file, and confirm that itunes seems to be producing an inferior rip on the WAV format, as your initial results already suggest.

Marco - I think Steve was saying that this problem is noted EVEN with these apple devices, not ONLY with them.

DTC - I spoke with Steve about this, and he mentioned that an ALAC file contains more than just the music bits, it also contains information on how the music bits should be played. Steve had suggested to me that the problem may reside there.

ANY ONE ELSE UP TO MAKE THE COMPARISON? IT REALLY IS EASY TO DO - THOUGH MOST OF US WOULD LIKELY RATHER NOT KNOW SUCH BAD NEWS!

Steve - I do not believe a 24-bit file and a 16-bit file would compare exactly. The extra 8 bits per sample have to be stored somewhere. So I am not sure what you mean by this.

Can someone do a bit compare on the Apple lossless files and see how different they are? As a first pass, do they contain the same number of bytes? (Although you have to be aware of the how the offset is set in EAC and how silence between tracks is handled.)

If there is a difference, then it could be either in the iTunes ripping process or in the wav to Apple lossless conversion. In fact, if a Apple lossless file ripped by iTunes is converted to wav and becomes identical to an EAC wav file, I would conjecture that the iTunes rip was as good as the EAC rip. If you take the iTunes ripped file, oonvert it to wav with iTunes and then convert it back to Apple lossless does it sound different than the original file? Does it bit compare?

Not trying to be difficult. I just want to figure out if the data in these files are different and if so where the difference comes from.

Great, I ripped all my cds into itunes with apple's lossless thinking I was getting everything I needed and saving space. Now I have to delete and reload!!

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).

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.

If the file is ripped directly to Apple Lossless with iTunes, the quality is inferior to the same file ripped with EAC and then converted to Apple Lossless with iTunes.

If the ALAC data is converted back to .wav, the files compare, but this does not tell the whole story. For instance, one file might be 24-bit and the other 16-bit, which makes a big difference in quality. They will still compare.

Steve N.

Interesting observations.

Sidssp - Did you try ripping the tracks that sounded different on the burned CDs and comparing them to each other and to the original ripped tracks? It would be interesting to see if the bits are different. If so, then the burning process may be the issue - which I think is what I think you concluded.

Peter_S What do you think caused the differences you hear? Do you agree if the bits are the same, the files should sound the same? If so, you might want to compare the actual files bit by bit. It is certainly possible that there is some error in the conversion process. You could compare the Apple lossless files with a file compare utility like fc/b, although it is pretty crude. You can also convert the Apple lossless to wav and compare those files using EAC or foobar. As I said above, when I ripped tracks to Apple lossless with iTunes and converted them to wav and compared to EAC ripped tracks, they were identical. Have not tried a bit compare after doing a wav to Apple lossless conversion but could try it. Also you could convert the Apple lossless lossless file that was converted from the EAC wav file back to wav and compare it to the original EAC wav file to see if the round trip introduced differences. EAC has a good comparison routine, although you have to set the disk offsets to 0 when ripping with EAC to do the comparison. Another interesting thing to do is to take the EAC wav and a iTunes ripped Apple lossless file converted to wav and use the ABX facility in foobar to do a blind test of the two files. Much harder to do comparisons with iTunes. (I don't want to get into a discussion of blinding testing - just wanted to point out the utility in foobar.)