Apple Lossless
Joe08867
Posts: 3,919
So I was asked in a PM how to rip music Lossless in iTunes.
So after tryng to write it myself I went to Apple support and found this.
Just an FYI for those that didn't know.
And the Link: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1550
Summary
You can convert a song to a different file format while keeping a copy of the original. For example, you can save a copy of an uncompressed song file such as AIFF or WAV to a compressed format like MP3, AAC, or Apple Lossless Encoder.
Products Affected
iTunes
Saving a copy of a song in a new file format
When converting from a compressed to uncompressed file format (for example, from MP3 to AIFF) you shouldn't notice any reduction in sound quality. However, when converting between compressed formats (for example MP3 and AAC), you may notice a reduction in the sound quality. For the best results, if you want your music encoded in a different file format, you should import the music again from the original source using the new encoding format.
To convert a song's file format:
1. Open iTunes Preferences.
Windows: Choose Edit > Preferences.
Mac: Choose iTunes > Preferences.
2. Click the General button, then click the Importing Settings button in the second section of the window.
3. From the Import Using pop-up menu, choose the encoding format that you want to convert the song to, then click OK to save the settings.
4. Select one or more songs in your library, then from the Advanced menu, choose one of the following (The menu item changes to show what's selected in your Importing preferences):
* Create MP3 version
* Create AAC version
* Create AIFF version
* Create WAV version
* Create Apple Lossless version
If you haven't imported some songs into iTunes yet, you can import and convert them at the same time. This will create a converted copy of the file in your iTunes Library based on your iTunes preferences. To convert all the songs in a folder or on a disk, hold down the Option key (Mac) or Shift key (Windows) and choose Advanced > Convert Import preference setting. The Import preference setting will match what you chose in step 3. iTunes will prompt you for the location of the folder or disk you want to import and convert. All the songs in the folder or on the disk will be converted. Note: Some purchased songs are encoded using a protected AAC format that prevents them from being converted. iTunes Plus purchases are not protected and can be converted.
The song in its original format and the newly converted song appear in your library.
Additional Information
About compression
When you convert a song, some data may be lost due to the way certain formats compress data. For this reason these formats are sometimes called "lossy" formats. The advantage of using a "lossy" format is that the file sizes are much smaller, which means you can store more songs in the same amount of disk space. The disadvantage is that the sound quality may not be as good as the original, uncompressed format. Depending on the song, the speakers or headphones, and the player you use to play the song, you may not be able to tell the difference between a compressed "lossy" song and a song that is not compressed.
Once a song is compressed (meaning some of its data is lost) you cannot retrieve the data by uncompressing it. If you convert a song from a "lossy" format to a uncompressed format, the quality of the song will not improve and the file will only take up more disk space. For example, if you convert a song in MP3 format (a compressed format) to AIFF (an uncompressed format) the song will take up much more space on the hard disk, but it will still sound the same as the compressed file. In order to take advantage of uncompressed formats you should only import songs using these formats.
So after tryng to write it myself I went to Apple support and found this.
Just an FYI for those that didn't know.
And the Link: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1550
Summary
You can convert a song to a different file format while keeping a copy of the original. For example, you can save a copy of an uncompressed song file such as AIFF or WAV to a compressed format like MP3, AAC, or Apple Lossless Encoder.
Products Affected
iTunes
Saving a copy of a song in a new file format
When converting from a compressed to uncompressed file format (for example, from MP3 to AIFF) you shouldn't notice any reduction in sound quality. However, when converting between compressed formats (for example MP3 and AAC), you may notice a reduction in the sound quality. For the best results, if you want your music encoded in a different file format, you should import the music again from the original source using the new encoding format.
To convert a song's file format:
1. Open iTunes Preferences.
Windows: Choose Edit > Preferences.
Mac: Choose iTunes > Preferences.
2. Click the General button, then click the Importing Settings button in the second section of the window.
3. From the Import Using pop-up menu, choose the encoding format that you want to convert the song to, then click OK to save the settings.
4. Select one or more songs in your library, then from the Advanced menu, choose one of the following (The menu item changes to show what's selected in your Importing preferences):
* Create MP3 version
* Create AAC version
* Create AIFF version
* Create WAV version
* Create Apple Lossless version
If you haven't imported some songs into iTunes yet, you can import and convert them at the same time. This will create a converted copy of the file in your iTunes Library based on your iTunes preferences. To convert all the songs in a folder or on a disk, hold down the Option key (Mac) or Shift key (Windows) and choose Advanced > Convert Import preference setting. The Import preference setting will match what you chose in step 3. iTunes will prompt you for the location of the folder or disk you want to import and convert. All the songs in the folder or on the disk will be converted. Note: Some purchased songs are encoded using a protected AAC format that prevents them from being converted. iTunes Plus purchases are not protected and can be converted.
The song in its original format and the newly converted song appear in your library.
Additional Information
About compression
When you convert a song, some data may be lost due to the way certain formats compress data. For this reason these formats are sometimes called "lossy" formats. The advantage of using a "lossy" format is that the file sizes are much smaller, which means you can store more songs in the same amount of disk space. The disadvantage is that the sound quality may not be as good as the original, uncompressed format. Depending on the song, the speakers or headphones, and the player you use to play the song, you may not be able to tell the difference between a compressed "lossy" song and a song that is not compressed.
Once a song is compressed (meaning some of its data is lost) you cannot retrieve the data by uncompressing it. If you convert a song from a "lossy" format to a uncompressed format, the quality of the song will not improve and the file will only take up more disk space. For example, if you convert a song in MP3 format (a compressed format) to AIFF (an uncompressed format) the song will take up much more space on the hard disk, but it will still sound the same as the compressed file. In order to take advantage of uncompressed formats you should only import songs using these formats.
Post edited by Joe08867 on
Comments
-
Thanks for posting this.
I have used iTunes to make Apple lossless files, but it is a pain. I do like my iPod touch, but iTunes is horrendous. Most of my lossless files are in Flac. I have to convert them all to get them onto my iPod. Suffice it to say I am behind in this task. I wish Apple would start supporting Flac. -
I wish they would support Flac as well. They are missing the boat on that.
-
^^^ Ditto but Apple has always been about being proprietory. No way they would support a competing open source lossless format unless they lost tremendous market share to a rival and were forced to.
-
Why would anyone "convert" from compressed to uncompressed?
-
mdaudioguy wrote: »Why would anyone "convert" from compressed to uncompressed?
I think people try it thinking it would help the sound but really it just makes a small bad MP3 file a large bad AAC file. -
maximillian wrote: »I have used iTunes to make Apple lossless files, but it is a pain.
What is the pain part? After configuring iTunes (1 or 2 clicks) to import in the Apple Lossless format, all it takes is to insert a CD into the drive, and click on Import. The settings stay the same until they are changed so you can turn the computer off and on all you want without having to reconfigure.
For me, the pain is finding the complete CD after it gets imported. I mainly import classical, and I cannot count the times iTunes creates multiple CDs of a few songs instead on one CD with all the songs. That drives me crazy when I try to copy them to the iPod.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
What is the pain part?
It's converting from FLAC to ALAC. I haven't found any free software to do it (but I haven't looked too hard), so I use WinAmp to convert FLAC to WAV then iTunes to convert WAV to ALAC. Then I still would like to keep the FLAC since I am not completely sold on Apple lossless. So now I am storing two sets of lossless files. It's not that bad, but doing it for lots of albums is a pain so I just haven't made it a priority.
My other comment is about iTunes in general. Linked is a recent crappy experience I had with syncing iTunes. Read the 3rd to the last post for the conclusion to my issue. It was really odd for software that has been out for such a long time.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=13135667�
I guess I am wondering if there is better software out there to replace iTunes and also convert from FLAC to Apple lossless. Any suggestions? -
Since Apple lossless is proprietary, and Apple doesn't support FLAC, I doubt you'll find a decent converter, so FLAC>WAV>ALAC is probably your only real choice.maximillian wrote: »It's converting from FLAC to ALAC. I haven't found any free software to do it (but I haven't looked too hard), so I use WinAmp to convert FLAC to WAV then iTunes to convert WAV to ALAC. Then I still would like to keep the FLAC since I am not completely sold on Apple lossless. So now I am storing two sets of lossless files. It's not that bad, but doing it for lots of albums is a pain so I just haven't made it a priority.
My other comment is about iTunes in general. Linked is a recent crappy experience I had with syncing iTunes. Read the 3rd to the last post for the conclusion to my issue. It was really odd for software that has been out for such a long time.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=13135667�
I guess I am wondering if there is better software out there to replace iTunes and also convert from FLAC to Apple lossless. Any suggestions? -
use dbpoweramp (paid version). It'll convert directly between FLAC -> Apple Lossless.ALL BOXED UP for a while until I save up for a new place
Home Theater:
KEF Q900s / MIT Shotgun S3 / MIT CVT2 ICs | KEF Q600C | Polk FXi5 | BJC Wire | Signal / AQ ICs | Shunyata / Pangea PCs | Pioneer Elite SC 57 | Parasound NC2100 Pre | NAD M25 | Marantz SA8001 | Schiit Gungnir DAC | SB Touch
2 Channel:
Polk LSi9 (xo mods), Polk DSW MicroPro 2000 sub | NAD c375BEE | W4S DAC1 | SB Touch | Marantz SA-8001 | MIT AVt 2 | Kimber Hero / AQ / Signal ICs | Shunyata / Signal PCs -
use dbpoweramp (paid version). It'll convert directly between FLAC -> Apple Lossless.
That's what I do, I just hate having to store two different file types. Usually, I just delete the apple lossless after putting it on my phone.I wish they would support Flac as well. They are missing the boat on that.
Apple, supporting open source?!? yeah I don't think that even registers as an option for them. What would be the point of making a product if they can't hold you under their oppressive iron fist? -
I posted this several times, but MediaMonkey does support Flac, and will covert into Flac as well.Shoot the jumper.....................BALLIN.............!!!!!
Home Theater Pics in the Showcase :cool:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showcase/view.php?userid=73580 -
I tried the free version of MediaMonkey. It seemed difficult to import the iTunes library properly. iTunes folder support was also not great. My library has about 2400 files, 180 play-lists, and about 40 folders. I gave up. I was able to export m3u play-lists but not the folder structure. Maybe there is an easier way to use it that I didn't figure out, but I was not about to recreate the library structure.
-
I have used lossless for 4 years now and love it but I am not one that burns to cd's and use other mp3 players. I love itunes and its origination even down to the folders. I will always use itunes!HT setup
Panasonic 50" TH-50PZ80U
Denon DBP-1610
Monster HTS 1650
Carver A400X :cool:
MIT Exp 3 Speaker Wire
Kef 104/2
URC MX-780 Remote
Sonos Play 1
Living Room
63 inch Samsung PN63C800YF
Polk Surroundbar 3000
Samsung BD-C7900 -
I have used Itunes Apple Lossless until I sat and listened to .WAV at 1411 bit rate. It's a small difference but worth re ripping music thats important sit down music. Music thats working on the car or house while listening will stay in Lossless.
I sat for hours now comparing these 2 to each other and decided WAV is a better cleaner more pure sounding format. Apple Lossless is very good.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
I have used Itunes Apple Lossless until I sat and listened to .WAV at 1411 bit rate. It's a small difference but worth re ripping music thats important sit down music. Music thats working on the car or house while listening will stay in Lossless.
I sat for hours now comparing these 2 to each other and decided WAV is a better cleaner more pure sounding format. Apple Lossless is very good.
If you convert a wav to flac, than back to wav the two wav files will be identical. They are bit perfect and this is done on the fly while you listen... where is the difference coming in here? -
I have used Itunes Apple Lossless until I sat and listened to .WAV at 1411 bit rate. It's a small difference but worth re ripping music thats important sit down music. Music thats working on the car or house while listening will stay in Lossless.
I sat for hours now comparing these 2 to each other and decided WAV is a better cleaner more pure sounding format. Apple Lossless is very good.
I thought your issue was Apple TV? Apple Lossless is just that; lossless. Uncompressed it is identical to the original CD file. Search the Internet and you will nothing to support the idea that Apple Lossless is somehow, in uncompressed form, deficient in any manner compared to the original file.Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
I thought your issue was Apple TV? Apple Lossless is just that; lossless. Uncompressed it is identical to the original CD file. Search the Internet and you will nothing to support the idea that Apple Lossless is somehow, in uncompressed form, deficient in any manner compared to the original file.
I work with a older Audiophile who is completely into building music servers and such. He builds his own subs , rebuilds speakers , does all kinds of crossover upgrades , a real tweaker if you will.
We got into a big debate about Apple Lossless , Flac and Wav files. He sent me a few articles to read but then suggested I listened for myself. Check this article out you may find it interesting.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html
Apple Lossless is a compressed file , it's not bit for bit as far as I can tell from the file size vs Wav. In sound quality shootouts , It's very hard to hear differences between the 2 but you can find subtle mid range differences.
I'm still learning about this debate and from what he and his high end buddies has discovered is the Apple Lossless files are not pure.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
Apple Lossless is a compressed file , it's not bit for bit as far as I can tell from the file size vs Wav. In sound quality shootouts , It's very hard to hear differences between the 2 but you can find subtle mid range differences.
I'm not an expert, but I believe that FLAC, WMA Lossless, and ALC (usually I see ALAC) are all compressed, but still lossless, so they won't be "bit for bit" identical to WAV.
The bottom line of this article pretty much says so,Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless.
So, compressed does not necessarily equate to lossy. If I understand correctly, a FLAC file (and probably the others) can be uncompressed to the original WAV. -
cokewithvanilla wrote: »If you convert a wav to flac, than back to wav the two wav files will be identical. They are bit perfect and this is done on the fly while you listen... where is the difference coming in here?
I'm not converting Flac to Wav or Wav to Flac. I'm burning Cd's in using Apple Lossless and then re ripping the cd again in Wav. After that doing a listening shootout to hear if there are any sonic differences I can hear.
I'm not new to ripping music but new to comparing the lossless formats and wav files. Compressed mp3 files are horrible and I feel they destroy your music. I don't even use lower quality on my ipods. I don't care about hard drive space , I can and will buy more . I'd rather have the very best quality I can use then have more music stored.
This all started after a conversation with a guy at work who is deeply into this. I was completely happy with Apple Lossless before he turned me onto Wav. Now I'm ripping and re ripping my cd collection of important music to Wav. I have compared the Apple Lossless files to Wav. I'm after a few more convincing listening tests , I'll probably delete the Apple Lossless files.
Again I'm no expert on any of this but I'm trying to learn as I go. The files are physically different in size , Wav files are bigger which tends to tell me right away they are more of an exact copy then Apple Lossless is.Dan
My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time. -
I believe that to be untrue. The word is lossless (i.e. NO loss). Like I said, data compression does not always lead to loss or degradation. Consider zipped exe files. If they lost necessary bits in the process, they would not run correctly.Again I'm no expert on any of this but I'm trying to learn as I go. The files are physically different in size , Wav files are bigger which tends to tell me right away they are more of an exact copy then Apple Lossless is. -
The real debate is not the definition of lossless compression.
It's if Apple really follows the concept. I could call a Ford Fiesta
a sports car, but that doesn't mean it is. I'm a FLAC kind of guy.
So a really don't have to deal with Apple's version.
I've seen these debates, and wonder if it's true or not.
I'm sure there's some real test data out there to prove one way or another.
I just don't care about Apple."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson -
BTW, some people report bitrate of lossless files as filesize divided by song length. This is not audio sampled bit rate. Sampled bit rate should not change between WAV, FLAC, and ALAC. The file size can definitely change which then people may report a different bit rate (file size) for each format, but the song should sound the same since the audio sampling hasn't changed.
Of course, if you sampled the same song at different bit rates and then compared the "lossless" files then they will indeed sound differently. But if you start with the same CD then ripped to each of the three formats then they should all sound the same. -
Again I'm no expert on any of this but I'm trying to learn as I go. The files are physically different in size , Wav files are bigger which tends to tell me right away they are more of an exact copy then Apple Lossless is.
File size for lossless compression is irrelevant for sound. Different compression algorithms will produce different file sizes. The measurement is the uncompressed file. Is the uncompressed file the same as the original file. That is the measurement related to sound.
The compressed file size is relevant when trying to get an idea of how much space can be saved on the storage device used.
From a stereophile review of the Wadia iTransport with an iPod Nano using Apple Lossless compressed files.
"I then compared that recording with a WAV rip from the original CD. The files were bit-for-bit identical"
"So when Stereophile writes about iPods and suchlike, we aren't championing lossy MP3s, but what we deem are incredibly convenient transportation devices for storing audio files of "Red Book" quality.
But even granting that an ALC file is a bit-perfect copy of the original recording,...."
"Footnote 2: I recorded the bits coming from the Wadia's coaxial S/PDIF output to my lab PC via the digital input of an RME soundcard, with Wes's iPod Nano playing a losslessly compressed file. I then compared that recording with a WAV rip from the original CD. The files were bit-for-bit identical, meaning that the 170iTransport is indeed transparent via its digital output."
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/1008wad/index.htmlLumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Let's not get the terminology wrong.
You can have a lossless file that is not bit for bit perfect, meaning it's not EXACTLY identical to the original. This most likely occurs at the ripping stage and has nothing to do with whether the file is lossless or not. It is very easily possible to make a bit for bit EXACT copy. It can be in any of the uncompressed formats as well as in lossless formats.
So to recap you can make a digital copy of music and it can be bit for bit perfect or not......it has nothing to do with whether it's lossless compression or not. Some people think if you rip a WAV file it's bit perfect to the original, it's not unless proper software and associated settings are used.
There is a methodology to ripping music digitally if you want an EXACT bit for bit perfect copy.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
Check this article out you may find it interesting.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html
Yes, it is interesting. It says Apple Lossless has no effect on the sound quality. :rolleyes:
"Lossless compression is benign in its effect on the music. It is akin to LHA or WinZip computer data crunchers in packing the data more efficiently on the disk, but the data you read out are the same as went in. "
"We recommend that, for serious listening, our readers use uncompressed audio file formats, such as WAV or AIF or, if file size is an issue because of limited hard-drive space, use a lossless format such as FLAC or ALC. These will be audibly transparent to all listeners at all times with all kinds of music through all systems. "Lumin X1 file player, Westminster Labs interconnect cable
Sony XA-5400ES SACD; Pass XP-22 pre; X600.5 amps
Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers; SPOD spikes
Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on source, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables
Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
Three 20 amp circuits. -
Again I'm no expert on any of this but I'm trying to learn as I go. The files are physically different in size , Wav files are bigger which tends to tell me right away they are more of an exact copy.
Wrong on so many levels.
Dan, get your read on so you have atleast some understanding how this type of thing works.
For instance: FLAC has 8 levels of compression, level 1 is the fastest conversion but it also takes up more space as the raw files are larger. level 8 is the slowest conversion, but it takes up less space as the raw files are smaller. The difference in time between the fastest and slowest level is about 30-45 sec and raw file size for level 1 is about 10-12% larger.
FLAC uncompresses on the fly as the data is streaming, so raw file size as reported on your HD has absoultely no bearing on sound quality, etc, etc."Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
I've said it about 50 times, but LOSSLESS IS LOSSLESS. Additionally, I haven't had a problem with getting an exact rip from itunes since about 5 years ago.
Wav files are highly redundant- think of it as having two speedometers on your car, one in kph, one in mph. It's easier to get to the information instantly with them both there, but you could just have the kph and convert to mph when you need it.
FLAC and ALC just get rid of the extra, redundant crap in the files, but retains all the unique information.
Continuing the metaphor, MP3 would be like a speedometer that only measures in 5 mph increments. No one looks at the little lines in between the 5mph ticks, so it just throws away that information and would click from 50 to 55 with nothing inbetween.Gallo Ref 3.1 : Bryston 4b SST : Musical fidelity CD Pre : VPI HW-19
Gallo Ref AV, Frankengallo Ref 3, LC60i : Bryston 9b SST : Meridian 565
Jordan JX92s : MF X-T100 : Xray v8
Backburner:Krell KAV-300i -
I've said it about 50 times, but LOSSLESS IS LOSSLESS. Additionally, I haven't had a problem with getting an exact rip from itunes since about 5 years ago.
Wav files are highly redundant- think of it as having two speedometers on your car, one in kph, one in mph. It's easier to get to the information instantly with them both there, but you could just have the kph and convert to mph when you need it.
FLAC and ALC just get rid of the extra, redundant crap in the files, but retains all the unique information.
Continuing the metaphor, MP3 would be like a speedometer that only measures in 5 mph increments. No one looks at the little lines in between the 5mph ticks, so it just throws away that information and would click from 50 to 55 with nothing inbetween.
It's simply not true. You can rip digital music and not have it be a bit for bit perfect copy.
Ripping HDCD info is a perfect example. If it's not a perfect bit for bit rip the HDCD will not be decoded. I've done this and seen the results for both cases.
Now, an arguement can be made whether there are audiable differences between a bit perfect copy and non-bit perfect copy, but you can rip digital info that is not bit for bit exact.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
Again I'm no expert on any of this but I'm trying to learn as I go. The files are physically different in size , Wav files are bigger which tends to tell me right away they are more of an exact copy then Apple Lossless is.
Nonsense. Take a MS Word file. A big one. Use WinZip to create a .zip file. Compare the size of the two files. The zip will be considerably smaller. Has any data been lost? Unzip it, and it turns back into the original Word file, bit for bit.
Ditto with lossless compression.Good music, a good source, and good power can make SDA's sing. Tubes make them dance. -
Again I'm no expert on any of this but I'm trying to learn as I go. The files are physically different in size , Wav files are bigger which tends to tell me right away they are more of an exact copy then Apple Lossless is.
Flac, wav, no difference. my point was, this is done on the fly, you are hearing a 1411 bit for bit wav file, for all intents and purposes, when you are listening to a FLAC. File size does not indicate quality.It's simply not true. You can rip digital music and not have it be a bit for bit perfect copy.
While true, this has nothing to do with what lossless format he picks, which seems to be his dilemma... he has the same chance of not getting a bit perfect copy with wav as with flac (from my understanding).
In my opinion, flac is better than wav due to its metadata capabilities.
