iPod v CD shoot out [Archive] - The Art of Sound Forum

worrasf

22-03-2012, 23:13

I've had my CD player and iPod replay system for sometime now but never got around to critically comparing the SQ of them side by side. The CD was playing up a bit tonight and I was getting ****ed off with it (just needed a lens cleaner as it happened )but it prompted me to dust off the iPod. I tend to duplicate any CD's I buy via iTunes and burn CD's of stuff I download from iTunes so have got loads of stuff in both formats. I was listening tonight to Springsteen's Wrecking Ball and Einaudi's Nightbook so poles apart genres.
CD system is Cyrus CD XT se / Cyrus PSxR and iPod system is Wadia 120i with full Audiocom signature upgrade and Teddy Pardo PSU. Both going via REGA DAC into my SOHA II headphone amp and Beyerdynamic DT 990 600 ohm cans. I chose to use headphones as its far easier to switch inputs while listening without having to get up and walk across the room and then sit back down again if listening via speakers. So started iPod and CD on same tracks (sync was within a second or 2) and just kept switching DAC input between them. No matter which track I played I could not tell any difference between them! This held true whether I was comparing commercial CD's I'd imported into iTunes or iTunes downloads I'd burned to CD. Now while the signature upgrade wasn't cheap the iPod replay system cost significantly less dollar than the CD replay system.
It might just be time to ditch the silver discs - although a bit more listening and reflection is called for first - interesting though .
Steve

StanleyB

23-03-2012, 06:02

Somehow that doesn't sound right. Have you gone an upgrade too far at some stage and lost the extra performance your CD player should have had over the iPOD in the process?

Martinh

23-03-2012, 06:33

Somehow that doesn't sound right. Have you gone an upgrade too far at some stage and lost the extra performance your CD player should have had over the iPOD in the process?

Excuse my ignorance, but why should a cd transport sound better than an iPod in this setup?

Martin

worrasf

23-03-2012, 07:02

Somehow that doesn't sound right. Have you gone an upgrade too far at some stage and lost the extra performance your CD player should have had over the iPOD in the process?

Hi Stan - Not sure what you mean :scratch:

Steve

StanleyB

23-03-2012, 08:40

Positive changes in one area can lead to negative changes in another. A typical, and easy to replicate experiment, example is speaker repositioning. I once moved my speakers a bit away from the wall and got less bass, but also lost some of the detail in other parts of the reproduction chain. I didn't notice the additional loss for quite a few days since I hadn't played any music with the now missing bits in the mean time. It's only when I did put on some tunes that I knew had those missing bits in it, that I then picked up on the unintended change.

Now, because you are comparing two items in an A/B situation, somewhere along the line you might have removed the situation where the CDP would otherwise have shown a clear and noticeable difference between itself and the iPOD. But that difference has now been eroded by one or more changes that you made.

worrasf

23-03-2012, 08:45

Now, because you are comparing two items in an A/B situation, somewhere along the line you might have removed the situation where the CDP would otherwise have shown a clear and noticeable difference between itself and the iPOD. But that difference has now been eroded by one or more changes that you made.

Nope - still don't follow the logic Stan :doh:
Surely, bottom line is that if the CD and iPod are both playing via exactly the same kit as in this situation then if there is a difference in SQ between them then it should be apparent on subjective listening :scratch:

I am not saying that this finding is new in my system just that this is the first time I properly sat down and compared the 2 sources - nothing has changed in the setup or kit.

Steve

Werner Berghofer

23-03-2012, 09:07

Steve,

if the CD and iPod are both playing via exactly the same kit as in this situation then if there is a difference in SQ between them then it should be apparent on subjective listening

I don’t think that a CD player by default always sounds better than an iPod. But it makes me wonder that you don’t notice a difference in sound quality when comparing 256 kbit AAC files from the iPod to uncompressed PCM from the audio CD with headphones of excellent resolution like the Beyerdynamic DT 990/600 Ω.

I’m certainly able to hear differences, especially when listening with headphones.

Werner.

worrasf

23-03-2012, 09:13

But it makes me wonder that you don’t notice a difference in sound quality when comparing 256 kbit AAC files from the iPod to uncompressed PCM from the audio CD with headphones of excellent resolution like the Beyerdynamic DT 990/600 Ω.Werner.

Hi Werner - yes, the DT990/600's are rather good :)

I don't know enough about the compression/non compression debate to comment here but perhaps it's because the Audiocom signature upgrade is just so good that the iPod sounds comparable to a top-flight CD transport and PSU?

Steve

Bazil

23-03-2012, 09:15

Steve,

I don’t think that a CD player by default always sounds better than an iPod. But it makes me wonder that you don’t notice a difference in sound quality when comparing 256 kbit AAC files from the iPod to uncompressed PCM from the audio CD with headphones of excellent resolution like the Beyerdynamic DT 990/600 Ω.

I’m certainly able to hear differences, especially when listening with headphones.

Werner.

I don't think Steve has mentioned compression, I take it his files are lossless.

Werner Berghofer

23-03-2012, 09:19

Barry,

I don't think Steve has mentioned compression, I take it his files are lossless.

Steve actually mentioned compression. Quote from his first post (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=309960&postcount=1) to this thread:

“I tend to duplicate any CD's I buy via iTunes and burn CD's of stuff I download from iTunes”

CDs purchased via iTunes come in 256 kbit/s AAC format. These are lossy, compressed audio files.

Werner.

Bazil

23-03-2012, 09:24

Werner Berghofer

23-03-2012, 09:41

Barry,

are they cheaper than a normal CD?

it depends, but usually yes, they are cheaper. In Europe the standard price for a complete album is € 8.99 or 9.99 | £ 7.51 or 8.35. The price for a single track is € 0.99 | £ 0.83.

As long as Apple is using a lossy format for distribution, I personally still prefer to purchase CDs and rip them to lossless format.

Werner.

StanleyB

23-03-2012, 09:45

Excuse my ignorance, but why should a cd transport sound better than an iPod in this setup?

Martin
Different file formats coupled to different electronic processes by which the raw data is extracted from the hardware storage area before being converted to a digital signal. In an excellent to high end set up I would expect some detectable difference.

bobbasrah

23-03-2012, 11:12

As long as Apple is using a lossy format for distribution, I personally still prefer to purchase CDs and rip them to lossless format.

+100%
Steve Jobs was quoted as being stunned that such a successfull business could be built on distributing reduced quality product, while the mainstream media industry were locked in a stone-age business model.:mental:
Apple capitalised by offering instant access, and are now so good at it that it might finally force what the industry has fought so hard to prevent, CD or better quality on the internet. :D

End hobbyhorse rant...:steam:

Bazil

23-03-2012, 11:42

Why do Apple compress their itune CD's? What is the storage size difference between ALAC and 256 AAC?

Werner Berghofer

23-03-2012, 12:21

Barry,

Why do Apple compress their itune CD's?

I guess because of transfer bandwidth limitations and storage capacity of their mobile devices.

What is the storage size difference between ALAC and 256 AAC?

This depends on the type of music being ripped. Here are the figures for a typical rock song (“Darkness on the edge of town” by Bruce Springsteen) with a duration of 4 minutes and 28 seconds:

Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC): 28.5 MB (28,583,602 bytes)
AAC 256 kbit/s: 8.5 MB (8,528,932 bytes)
AAC 128 kbit/s: 4.3 MB (4,285,902 bytes)

In the beginning Apple used AAC 128 kbit/s with embedded DRM protection. Apple called this “CD quality”. Later Digital Rights Management was dropped and the sampling rate doubled, but prices remained unchanged. The label “iTunes Plus” was used for this audio format, which now is the iTunes standard.

Steve Jobs was known for being an audiophile with good taste for equipment and music.

Werner

Bazil

23-03-2012, 12:46

Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC): 28.5 MB (28,583,602 bytes)
AAC 256 kbit/s: 8.5 MB (8,528,932 bytes)
AAC 128 kbit/s: 4.3 MB (4,285,902 bytes)

Cheers Werner ,quite a big difference when storing Lossless.

Martinh

23-03-2012, 12:52

Different file formats coupled to different electronic processes by which the raw data is extracted from the hardware storage area before being converted to a digital signal. In an excellent to high end set up I would expect some detectable difference.

Thanks Stan,

Can you REALLY tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed files in real life listening? Is is night and day or subtle?

I can easily tell the difference between good/bad mastering/dynamic range/compression etc at the recording stage, but not sure how much effect the way in which that recording is ripped and played back would have.

And would I notice the difference on my budget system? I'm using apple TV2 with itunes match (streaming AAC 256 files) mainly for convenience, as I don't need a NAS or PC running. Am I missing out on sound quality for the sake of convenience?

Does that make sense?

Martin

Tim

23-03-2012, 13:03

Can you REALLY tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed files in real life listening? Is is night and day or subtle?
Yes, everytime and for me it is night and day. However, a lot will depend on the file format, the equipment used for playback, your hearing and how discerning you are. Many people are very happy with 192kbps and a lot cannot tell the difference between 256kbps and lossless. The only way really is to try it yourself and see what you are happy with.

Werner Berghofer

23-03-2012, 13:07

Martin,

Can you REALLY tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed files in real life listening?

I guess in real life (casual?) listening the differences hardly would be noticed.

However, I’m the type of non-multitasking guy listening with closed eyes to near-field speakers or high quality headphones. Being 55 years of age and not blessed with “golden ears”, I’m certainly able everytime to distinguish between AAC 256 kbit/s and ALAC. My female partner, 48 years of age and by no means an audiophile, also clearly hears the differences.

This also depends a lot on the kind of music and the revealing nature of the playback equipment.

Werner.

Martinh

23-03-2012, 13:13

Looks like I'm going to have to try it then :)

With my Apple tv2, I can play:

HE-AAC (V1), AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF, and WAV

So, I think I can rip some CDs to WAV or apple lossless (is that ALAC?) and play those without changing any hardware.

The other thing is that the apple TV2 outputs to my dac with a bitrate of 48khz - will that make a difference to the sound quality too?

Sorry for all the questions.

Martin

Werner Berghofer

23-03-2012, 13:26

Martin,

I think I can rip some CDs to WAV or apple lossless (is that ALAC?) and play those without changing any hardware.

yes, ALAC is the acronym for Apple Lossless Audio Codec. You don’t need to use WAV or AIFF, since these formats don’t sound different from ALAC (or FLAC), but the resulting files are quite huge, and in the case of WAV don’t support tagging.

Here are the figures for a typical rock song, “Darkness on the edge of town” by Bruce Springsteen, duration 4:28

Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC): 28.5 MB (28,583,602 bytes)
AIFF/WAV: 47.6 MB (47,663,612 bytes)

Contrary to the current high-res hysteria in Audiophile voodoo circles, a bit depth of 16 bit and a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz are more than sufficient for high quality audio playback.

Werner.

Martinh

23-03-2012, 13:31

Martin,

yes, ALAC is the acronym for Apple Lossless Audio Codec. You don’t need to use WAV or AIFF, since these formats don’t sound different from ALAC (or FLAC), but the resulting files are quite huge, and in the case of WAV don’t support tagging.

Here are the figures for a typical rock song, “Darkness on the edge of town” by Bruce Springsteen, duration 4:28

Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC): 28.5 MB (28,583,602 bytes)
AIFF/WAV: 47.6 MB (47,663,612 bytes)

Contrary to the current high-res hysteria in Audiophile voodoo circles, a bit depth of 16 bit and a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz are more than sufficient for high quality audio playback.

Werner.

Thanks for that Werner, you've made it easy for me to understand :)

I'm going to re-rip the KD Lang Drag CD in ALAC right now and report back later.

Cheers,

martin

worrasf

23-03-2012, 18:40

Bazil

23-03-2012, 18:56

But I always rip purchased CD's into iTunes using Apple Lossless.

Steve

Ah ha back to square one :D

Werner Berghofer

23-03-2012, 19:59

Stephen,

But I always rip purchased CD's into iTunes using Apple Lossless.

oh sorry, then please excuse my big misunderstanding. I did read your sentence

“I tend to duplicate any CD's I buy via iTunes and burn CD's of stuff I download from iTunes”

as if you would buy and download stuff via iTunes and subsequently burn audio CDs from these purchases. Sorry again, but English is not my native language.

And now it’s obvious why you don’t notice any differences in sound quality when comparing lossless audio files from your iPod to CDs played from your CD player.

Werner.

twelvebears

23-03-2012, 20:22

As long as Apple is using a lossy format for distribution, I personally still prefer to purchase CDs and rip them to lossless format.

:clapclapclap:

Martinh

24-03-2012, 07:26

So, I listened to KD Lang with both AAC and ALAC and there is a difference to my ears.

It's a subtle difference, but I found that the lossless files had more atmosphere and an improved soundstage. Definitely worth doing, as disk space is so cheap. I think I might be re-ripping my favourite CDs in the near future.

Thanks for your help in opening my eyes (and ears).

Martin

dave2010

24-03-2012, 09:40

I currently rip CDs to ALAC (usually), though some get to Flac. I am no longer sure how bad compressed audio is, though I do try to avoid it. Down at low bit rates it's dreadul, but at 256kbps or higher most lossy compression schemes do at least a reasonable job. I wouldn't claim I could always distinguish between a compressed and an uncompressed file, if the compression is at the higher bit rates. I agree that using headphones tends to expose problems with sound quality, particularly with digitally compressed audio.

For my purposes though, since I have large enough disc drives I'm happy enough to use lossless compression, which should avoid most problems.

I am slightly alarmed to read of the conviction, for such it is, expressed by a few that WAV format files sound better than Flac or Alac. I'm not sure that the storage requirements for WAV any longer present a significant problem (unless you are using a portable device, such as an iPod), but I wonder if there is anything in this, or if it is yet another hoax perpetuated by some "hi-fi" enthusiasts.

Are we still using green pens round the edges of CDs?

Werner Berghofer

24-03-2012, 09:49

Dave,

yet another hoax perpetuated by some "hi-fi" enthusiasts.

I think this hits it exactly on the head. When converting ALAC and FLAC files back to WAV, the resulting files are 1:1 bit identical to WAV rips of the same track. However, some Voodoo priests claim that the additional processing overhead (in the age of multi-core CPUs) required for de-compressing ALAC/FLAC files causes electrical noise which degrades the sound quality.

Werner.

StanleyB

24-03-2012, 09:53

I am slightly alarmed to read of the conviction, for such it is, expressed by a few that WAV format files sound better than Flac or Alac. I'm not sure that the storage requirements for WAV any longer present a significant problem (unless you are using a portable device, such as an iPod), but I wonder if there is anything in this, or if it is yet another hoax perpetuated by some "hi-fi" enthusiasts.
I feel offended by your comments. I am one of those who have indicated that I can hear a difference. Of course, there have been a number of people who have questioned me, my sanity, and my equipment with regards to my observations. But it isn't a hoax. I stated what I observed. Whether anyone else is able to reproduce the same results on their hifi system is a different matter.

Werner Berghofer

24-03-2012, 10:07

Stanley,

I am one of those who have indicated that I can hear a difference.

the first generations of your Gator audio PCB upgrade option for your TC-7520 DACs were well-known for producing distortions, especially in tracks with female vocals, for example Norah Jones or Madeleine Peyroux. I can repeat and demonstrate these distortions anytime in a direct A/B comparison between a Beresford Caiman and a Schiit Bifrost DAC, in case anybody should be interested hearing them and doesn’t mind visiting my home in Tyrol.

In the original thread (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=202777#post202777) you commented the CD “Feels like home” by Norah Jones: “I know that some of the Norah Jones tracks are dodgy in their production, and even with a TC-7510 I can hear those recording defects. The Gator would make those defects even more noticeable.” I do know that these defects you mention here are not found on the CD, but in your DACs instead.

Sorry, I don’t trust your analytical hearing abilities anymore.

Werner.

Tim

24-03-2012, 11:36

I am slightly alarmed to read of the conviction, for such it is, expressed by a few that WAV format files sound better than Flac or Alac.
Before I fully committed myself to file based audio, I spent some time trialling and listening to different file formats and compression rates. With a large CD collection I wanted to get it right first time as I was going to spend many, many weeks ripping that collection. Try as I might, with my equipment I could not detect a difference between FLAC and WAV, so I settled on FLAC for my master library. Most of my equipment has changed now, so I may revisit this, but for now I am more than happy with FLAC.

Martinh

24-03-2012, 12:21

Flac seems to be the best option, except if you are an apple user :(

Martin

Tim

24-03-2012, 13:09

You could try Fluke? I can't help thinking that without Steve Jobs, it might not be too long before iTunes will play many more file formats. I could be wrong, but they would attract a lot more users IMO.

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/28768/fluke

worrasf

24-03-2012, 14:56

Martin,

yes, ALAC is the acronym for Apple Lossless Audio Codec. You don’t need to use WAV or AIFF, since these formats don’t sound different from ALAC (or FLAC), but the resulting files are quite huge, and in the case of WAV don’t support tagging.

Here are the figures for a typical rock song, “Darkness on the edge of town” by Bruce Springsteen, duration 4:28

Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC): 28.5 MB (28,583,602 bytes)
AIFF/WAV: 47.6 MB (47,663,612 bytes)

Contrary to the current high-res hysteria in Audiophile voodoo circles, a bit depth of 16 bit and a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz are more than sufficient for high quality audio playback.

Werner.

So with vinyl I rip using Audacity at project rate of 44100 Hz 32 bit. Export files as AIFF (Apple signed 16 bit PCM) - Add the files to iTunes library then convert them to Apple Lossless with about a 50% reduction in file size. Anyone know of a "better" way bearing in mind it's for iTunes /iPod replay ?

Steve

Stratmangler

24-03-2012, 15:02

So with vinyl I rip using Audacity at project rate of 44100 Hz 32 bit. Export files as AIFF (Apple signed 16 bit PCM) - Add the files to iTunes library then convert them to Apple Lossless with about a 50% reduction in file size. Anyone know of a "better" way bearing in mind it's for iTunes /iPod replay ?

Steve

First off - it's not a rip, it's a recording.
The rest of the process sounds fine to me - it's not totally dissimilar to the way I record vinyl and add the files to my Squeezebox server.

worrasf

24-03-2012, 15:06

First off - it's not a rip, it's a recording.

Cite your source sir ;)

http://www.bestshareware.net/howto/rip-vinyl-albums-to-cd-mp3-itunes-ipod.htm

http://www.pcworld.com/article/117810/rip_your_records.html

Steve

Werner Berghofer

24-03-2012, 15:32

Stephen,

So with vinyl I rip using Audacity at project rate of 44100 Hz 32 bit.

what are you trying to achieve with a bit depth of 32? Standard audio CDs have a dynamic range of about 96 dB (16 bit), which is much more than you’ll find on any vinyl LP. 16 bits are more than adequate for the dynamic range of LPs.

The latest version of iTunes allows you to select a sampling rate of 128, 192 or 256 kbit/s to resample huge, lossless files on the fly while transferring them to an iPhone, iPod or iPad. I think AAC 256 kbit/s is really more than good enough for portable playback. The original lossless files in your library won’t be changed when using this option.

Werner.

worrasf

24-03-2012, 15:58

Stephen,

what are you trying to achieve with a bit depth of 32? Standard audio CDs have a dynamic range of about 96 dB (16 bit), which is much more than you’ll find on any vinyl LP. 16 bits are more than adequate for the dynamic range of LPs.

The latest version of iTunes allows you to select a sampling rate of 128, 192 or

Werner.

Hi Werner - nothing in particular - 44100/32 is the default Audacity recording setting so I just left it unchanged.

Steve

dave2010

24-03-2012, 19:37

I feel offended by your comments. I am one of those who have indicated that I can hear a difference. Of course, there have been a number of people who have questioned me, my sanity, and my equipment with regards to my observations. But it isn't a hoax. I stated what I observed. Whether anyone else is able to reproduce the same results on their hifi system is a different matter.Hey Stan, it was nothing to do with you. I saw a comment or link by Vincent Kars - I think to this article -
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm

I've got a slightly open mind on this. There really shouldn't be a significant difference, but maybe enough people are claiming they can hear differences.

If I've been encoding to alac when I should have ripped to WAV I guess I'd better start over ripping again.

Best wishes.

Stratmangler

24-03-2012, 19:49

If I've been encoding to alac when I should have ripped to WAV I guess I'd better start over ripping again

Why WAV?
AIFF has full tagging support in many media players.

I can't hear the difference between FLAC & WAV - maybe my hearing is f#?ked, which wouldn't be surprising, considering that I use a drilling machine regularly on a professional basis.
However I do not think so.

There again, I don't play music files back on something so flaky as a computer OS - I've been a Squeezebox user for a long time now.

Anyway, if you've been ripping to ALAC you shouldn't need to re-rip your discs, or has the fact that your files are losslessly compressed passed you by?
You should be able to decompress your files back to their pre compression state.

Reid Malenfant

24-03-2012, 19:53

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I know WAV needs no processing what so ever during playback as the full file is there. As far as I know FLAC does need processing as the full file is no longer there, so the eventual output may well be dependant on the system rather than the file in the case of WAV :scratch:

Perhaps someone can put some more meat on the bones or tell me I'm losing the plot :eyebrows:

Stratmangler

24-03-2012, 19:57

Reid Malenfant

24-03-2012, 20:00

You're losing the plot :D

If the checksums on a file are the same post decompression as they were pre compression then the file is the same as an uncompressed file.
& yet you need to process the FLAC file to convert it back to WAV? So obviously it isn't the same or no processing would need to be applied at all ;)

Think about it...

Stratmangler

24-03-2012, 20:03

& yet you need to process the FLAC file to convert it back to WAV? So obviously it isn't the same or no processing would need to be applied at all ;)

Think about it...

:doh:
The files aren't the same in storage.
That's why the term losslessly compressed is used.
On playback things are decompressed to their original state, and then played.

Reid Malenfant

24-03-2012, 20:05

On playback things are decompressed to their original state, and then played.
That is precisely, exactly what I was saying! They are processed during playback, so the sound becomes system dependant :eyebrows:

Welder

24-03-2012, 20:22

Enters stage left, waving Dac in the air singing “I can hear the grass grow” by the Move......

Stratmangler

24-03-2012, 20:23

That is precisely, exactly what I was saying! They are processed during playback, so the sound becomes system dependant :eyebrows:

Yeah, OK.
Cut me some slack here - I hit the sherbet a couple or three hours ago while the match was on ESPN.

If you can hear differences on playback then the system is broken :eek:

Reid Malenfant

24-03-2012, 20:27

Stratmangler

24-03-2012, 20:35

Slack cut Chris :cool:

I tend to agree with the playback bit, though there is always the possibility of a f*ck up somewhere when any on the fly processing is going on.

I'm catching up you know :cheers:

That f*ck up factor is why I believe there are folk claiming to hear differences between WAV & FLAC files - I've never heard them in my system, but my system has never had Wndows based players in it.

Reid Malenfant

24-03-2012, 20:38

While I have never played with file based audio I actually agree with you :) Not sure about Windoze either as I haven't tried a thing (except MP3 on my PC).

dave2010

24-03-2012, 23:14

Yomanze

24-03-2012, 23:39

There shouldn't be much, if any, audible difference. The Flac files should contain exactly the same information as equivalent WAVs. The issue at atake is whether the different processing on playback does actually affect the sound, which might be possible for all sorts of reasons, including program bugs. The overall concensus is that for all practical purposes they sound the same, but this may be systm dependent and some people do claim to be able to hear differences and some have apparently a preference for WAVs.

According to blind tests by Gordon Rankin - http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm - people preferred PCM (WAV / FLAC) over lossless 82% of the time. Maybe he was using a poor CPU, I don't know.

I guess this might be another case of 'instruments only measure what they were designed to measure' and we are missing something.

I do notice a difference, but it is subtle as with comparing LAME-encoded 320kbps mp3 vs. FLAC.

Let's not forget that cables (even 'properly' designed ones) shouldn't make a difference, but lots of people here would disagree with this view.

dave2010

25-03-2012, 08:02

According to blind tests by Gordon Rankin - http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm - people preferred PCM (WAV / FLAC) over lossless 82% of the time. Maybe he was using a poor CPU, I don't know.

I do notice a difference, but it is subtle as with comparing LAME-encoded 320kbps mp3 vs. FLAC.

Let's not forget that cables (even 'properly' designed ones) shouldn't make a difference, but lots of people here would disagree with this view.You claim to hear a difference between WAV and FLAC. Are you sure? Are the test conditions for one as near identical as possible to the other? Are you controlling the test, or is someone else? You claim the difference is subtle, so even a very slight difference in the way your files get treated could account for that.

On balance I'm swinging back more firmly to the view that there is no significant difference between lossless codecs like alac, flac and wav, and that reports that wav files sound better are not based on sound evidence or experiences.

Stratmangler

25-03-2012, 11:02

bobbasrah

25-03-2012, 11:49

On balance I'm swinging back more firmly to the view that there is no significant difference between lossless codecs like alac, flac and wav, and that reports that wav files sound better are not based on sound evidence or experiences.

I agree totally Dave, if there is such a phenomenon, it's cause is not due to the file being ALAC, FLAC or WAV, but something entirely different.

There was a long thread recently on this specific subject, where the originator of the assertion made no effort whatsoever to assist in identifying the cause, yet remains firmly of that opinion to this day.
After extensive tests on that thread, nobody, I repeat NOBODY stepped forward with a report of any such phenomenon.

StanleyB

25-03-2012, 13:14

There was a long thread recently on this specific subject, where the originator of the assertion made no effort whatsoever to assist in identifying the cause, yet remains firmly of that opinion to this day.
Please name the person and the thread. Surely you cannot make slanderous accusations against a fellow AoS member without being challenged on your motives in raising it in this thread. Maybe you have an axe to grind with that person? Your speedy action in adding next to nothing to this actual thread, but a blistering pace in firing off accusations with finger pointing to another thread and someone on AoS is in my eyes of very poor taste and shouldn't go unnoticed.

dave2010

25-03-2012, 14:07

Chris

I don't know why that quoted bit got into my last response. Maybe I should remove it anyway, as it includes a ****d out obscenity, which I certainly didn't want included.

I was doing it on my iPad, and for some reason the response kept going wrong. I certainly didn't intend to put two quoted bits into that response, and I tried very hard (so I thought) not to reply to your previous comment. I was not trying to respond to you, but rather to Neil. I note also that Stan believes he hears a difference. I'm not suggesting that he isn't hearing something - he hears what he hears, and makes his own judgements. It could be due to all sorts of factors, though I would tend to the view that it's not the difference between WAV and any lossless codec, but something else.
Sorry!

I've looked through most of the relevant threads on this site and on others, and overall it seems that there is no discernible difference between the lossless codec formats and WAV.

There could of course be differences between players, and hardware, but once we start allowing those differences into the comparison then it just becomes a mess. Down at the bit level they all seem to do the same thing. Taking into account jitter should give only minute differences given the speed of most processors these days. Some investigations have apparently shown some unexplained differences into the power levels, but these are at a very low level, and would almost certainly not be audible.

I am interested enough now to try comparing the file types, but unless there's a very significant difference in my perception of the audio, then I think personally I'll put this to rest. It's very easy to get things wrong if the volume levels and other factors aren't set the same, and to then be persuaded that one mode is better than another, when it's other factors which are biasing one's perception.

f1eng

25-03-2012, 21:25

The likely hood of a losslessly compressed audio file actually sounding different to the original is about the same as a zipped letter file being expanded and being found to have the spelling changed, i.e. zero.
The likelihood of some people imagining they can hear a difference seems surprisingly high, however.
An audio engineer friend of mine was involved in working on the MP3 codec audibility. The objective was to find a solution which was inaudible to 90% of the population. It was music dependant, some types of music are very easily messed up and others can be hugely compressed without anybody noticing, but, IIRC, in the end 90% of the large test group could not hear a loss of quality with MP3 at the standard bit rate (which I think was 192kbs)
This means 10% of people -can- repeatably tell the difference.
FWIW

StanleyB

26-03-2012, 08:28

The likely hood of a losslessly compressed audio file actually sounding different to the original is about the same as a zipped letter file being expanded and being found to have the spelling changed, i.e. zero.
Wrong analogy I am afraid to say.
If you look at the algorithms in a text and numbers based RAR or ZIP file, there are only 255 entries to deal with. So decompression based on a known library reference is not go9ing to skew the process. But that is only for text based on the ASCII chart.

But if you decompress a string of text on say a PC that has English as the default language, and the text was written in say Russian, you are likely to get a bunch of junk characters that mean absolutely nothing. Give it a try.

But this does raise the issue why we worry about using better fuses, cables with more strands, better mains plugs and sockets, etc. Since these components are also lossless anyhow, surely it doesn't make any difference either. There is no way anyone could possible hear a difference when upgrading their cables etc. Those things are lossless and no scientific measurement is able to demonstrate a difference in sound.

Mind you, I am surprised that when it comes to lossless decoding that anyone who can hear a difference is considered crazy or worse. This leads me to the conclusion that people of those nature, such as myself, should stop sharing their experience with anyone else.

I am quite chuffed with my equipment and the amount of depth, soundstage, presence, etc. I get from listening to it. It has helped me to develop some very cost effective mods for my own products, and most who have tried out those mods afterwards have not been disappointed with the accuracy of my observations. So I am sticking to what I use for reference. It has helped to improve my bank balance and made a lot of customers very happy. I am not going to get hot under the collar from any of the insults. A far better idea is to develop products that would allow others to also experience the pleasures of those discoveries :eyebrows:.

jostber

26-03-2012, 09:17

Barry,

Steve actually mentioned compression. Quote from his first post (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=309960&postcount=1) to this thread:

“I tend to duplicate any CD's I buy via iTunes and burn CD's of stuff I download from iTunes”

CDs purchased via iTunes come in 256 kbit/s AAC format. These are lossy, compressed audio files.

Werner.

It's also important to notice regarding download media that it's not legal to resell it, so in essence it's more expensive that physical CD's which can be resold. It is also not allowed to sell your portable device, iPod or other similar devices like hard discs, USB sticks and more if there is downloaded music from iTunes on it. HiFi News has verified this with IFPI in an article on the digital download business in their latest issue.

On iTunes legal terms:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-06/tech/itunes.terms_1_itunes-users-terms-apple-users?_s=PM:TECH

The South Park version:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/south-park-parodies-itunes-terms-and-conditions/10043

Werner Berghofer

26-03-2012, 10:35

Stanley,

I am surprised that when it comes to lossless decoding that anyone who can hear a difference is considered crazy or worse.

I am even more surprised that a DAC designer like you probably might not be able to distinguish between distortions on a recording and distorsions caused by the equipment he builds.

But if you decompress a string of text on say a PC that has English as the default language, and the text was written in say Russian, you are likely to get a bunch of junk characters that mean absolutely nothing.

Are you sure you understand the differences between binary file compression/decompression, character sets and character encoding? On the binary level, the “bunch of junk characters” on the English PC is absolutely identical to the Russian PC. The meaning of the bits representing the text only becomes obvious the moment they are viewed with the proper character encoding. Have you ever tried to listen to a bitmap pixel image in a software audio player?

Werner.

jostber

26-03-2012, 10:55

Articles on issues with Mastered for Itunes material:

http://www.cepro.com/article/apples_mastered_for_itunes_is_it_legit/
http://productionadvice.co.uk/mastered-for-itunes/

jostber

26-03-2012, 12:54

Let's sue everyone for everything:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-29/samsung-files-patent-suit-against-apple-over-iphone-technology.html
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/04/apple-sues-samsung-for-blatantly-copying-iphone-and-ipad.html
http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/16/htc-sues-apple-patents/
http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-news/kodak-sues-apple-over-imaging-patents/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/24/personal-audio-sues-apple-again-targets-iphone-4-ipad-2-and-ne/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/244290/apple_sues_amazon_over_app_store_name.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/12/20/apple_sues_samsung_over_patented_ipad_iphone_case_ designs.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203824904577215440761191830.html
http://androidspin.com/2012/02/10/apple-sues-google-to-make-google-stop-suing-apple-in-germany/

Good times for lawyers.

StanleyB

26-03-2012, 13:32

Are you sure you understand the differences between binary file compression/decompression, character sets and character encoding? On the binary level, the “bunch of junk characters” on the English PC is absolutely identical to the Russian PC.
Let's just say that I have had to deal with this problem on a number of occasions ;). I used to work on algorithms for encoding/decoding and data compression.

Martinh

26-03-2012, 16:18

Articles on issues with Mastered for Itunes material:

http://www.cepro.com/article/apples_mastered_for_itunes_is_it_legit/
http://productionadvice.co.uk/mastered-for-itunes/

I read the mastered for iTunes guidelines to sound engineers and the cepro article and the cepro writer doesn't know what he's talking about. He obviously didn't read or understand what apple are trying to achieve.

Mastered for iTunes is all about Increasing dynamic range and reducing compression and distortion in the music - its nothing to do with compressing files to make them smaller :rolleyes:

Martin

jostber

26-03-2012, 16:28

Do you mean what is said about Apple's mastering in this video is wrong?

http://productionadvice.co.uk/mastered-for-itunes-cd-comparison/

Martinh

26-03-2012, 16:40

Do you mean what is said about Apple's mastering in this video is wrong?

http://productionadvice.co.uk/mastered-for-itunes-cd-comparison/

Not at all.

If you read the mastered for iTunes PDF, you will see that apple are trying to improve the sound quality of their downloads by asking sound engineers to reduce the amount of compression, clipping distortion etc. and increase the dynamic range of the master - it mentions loudness wars and audiophiles complaining about poor dynamic range, distortion etc.

IMHO this has to be good for audiophiles, as apple is probably the only company big enough to make the record companies take notice. Even if you hate apple, this is positive for us.

This has nothing to do with file compression.

http://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf see page 3/4.

martin

Yomanze

26-03-2012, 19:08

You claim to hear a difference between WAV and FLAC. Are you sure? Are the test conditions for one as near identical as possible to the other? Are you controlling the test, or is someone else? You claim the difference is subtle, so even a very slight difference in the way your files get treated could account for that.

On balance I'm swinging back more firmly to the view that there is no significant difference between lossless codecs like alac, flac and wav, and that reports that wav files sound better are not based on sound evidence or experiences.

Hi, I used EAC to rip 100% AccurateRip result files as WAV, and then converted the same files to FLAC. I used Foobar2000's ABX plugin & playback to compare the tracks and use WASAPI for bit perfect output. I found that I consistently get 3/3 or 4/4 and then my attention starts to wane & I find it much harder to spot the differences (I have ADD, which does not help!!!).

This is a flaw in the ABX methodology in, like muscle fatigue, extended periods of listening in a test environment weaken you. May I draw your attention to this post from someone on head-fi.org:

The more times you hear the same track, the more easily fatigued you become. Listen to the two versions too many times, and they begin to sound exactly the same, despite a minor difference you may have noticed during the first five replicates. Because of this, I had to constantly test different sections.

I am in total agreement to this. I am NOT saying that there are big differences, they are *extremely* subtle and most heard with the leading & trailing edges of notes / percussive elements with sometimes a tiny amount more 'soul' to be heard with vocals. May I also mention that this testing was done using STAX earspeakers which are about as revealing as they get, way more than any speakers.

As Stan and I have mentioned, this "FLAC can't sound different to WAV" argument is exactly the same as proclaiming that properly designed cables do not make a difference as these are also "lossless" excluding the physical losses of copper etc, which measurably shouldn't make any difference anyway!

Edit: this test was done using a laptop with an AMD Turion 2.2GHz dual core processor & 3GB RAM. I also used a Beresford DAC, so hats off to Stan for creating a source that can pick up on the differences.

Stratmangler

27-03-2012, 07:04

Cite your source sir ;)

http://www.bestshareware.net/howto/rip-vinyl-albums-to-cd-mp3-itunes-ipod.htm

http://www.pcworld.com/article/117810/rip_your_records.html

Steve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping

AlexM

29-03-2012, 08:58

Yomanze,

As one of those that claim to hear a difference, could we ask that you also do the same comparison between a WAV (1), FLAC encode of the same WAV (2) , and then that FLAC decoded back to WAV (3). I am interested in whether (1) and (3) sound the same.

For myself, I cannot reliably tell the difference between a WAV and FLAC when differences caused by replaygain etc are eliminated.

I am interested in knowing whether the difference is caused by blockwise decompression of streaming FLACs as opposed to static decompression to an intermediate PCM file that can be buffered fully in memory. If static conversions of files are subject to checksum comparisons and match, then there is no reason why playback should sound different. I am interested in the possible implementation differences in players between LPCM and FLAC streaming that might have some bearing on the reported SQ differences.

If you follow my logic, I am expecting that the comparison of (1) and (3) above to be a null.

Regards,
Alex

Yomanze

29-03-2012, 18:50

Yomanze,

As one of those that claim to hear a difference, could we ask that you also do the same comparison between a WAV (1), FLAC encode of the same WAV (2) , and then that FLAC decoded back to WAV (3). I am interested in whether (1) and (3) sound the same.

>> "one of those" ha ha! I believe that 1 and 3 should be identical given you follow proper encoding and decoding practices. I don't feel the need to ABX test this.

For myself, I cannot reliably tell the difference between a WAV and FLAC when differences caused by replaygain etc are eliminated.

>> I wouldn't be able to unless using my STAX setup, and it's such a small difference anyway. Hopefully there are speakers out there that can do the same! According to the ABX test that I did there was around a 6% chance that I was guessing & this was done repeatedly.

I am interested in knowing whether the difference is caused by blockwise decompression of streaming FLACs as opposed to static decompression to an intermediate PCM file that can be buffered fully in memory. If static conversions of files are subject to checksum comparisons and match, then there is no reason why playback should sound different. I am interested in the possible implementation differences in players between LPCM and FLAC streaming that might have some bearing on the reported SQ differences.

If you follow my logic, I am expecting that the comparison of (1) and (3) above to be a null.

>> Yes, I agree, 1 and 3 will sound identical, which leaves us with hardware, software and the universe rather than binary!

Regards,
Alex

Hi Alex thanks for the reply, comments above. :)

worrasf

29-03-2012, 21:50

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping

Which states "Ripping is the process of copying audio or video content to a hard disk, typically from removable media. The word is used to refer to all forms of media."

In other words ripping and copying are synonymous.

Steve

Stratmangler

30-03-2012, 08:59

Which states "Ripping is the process of copying audio or video content to a hard disk, typically from removable media. The word is used to refer to all forms of media."

In other words ripping and copying are synonymous.

Steve

So try copying a vinyl record to HDD on a computer then.
You can't.
It is possible to get a representation of the record by recording it digitally, hence my comment.
You can no more "rip" a vinyl record than you can a cassette tape.

I hear the term "vinyl rip" being bandied about and it is incorrect.
I'd prefer to hear the term "needledrop" as it's a more accurate way of describing things :)

AlexM

30-03-2012, 09:02

Hi Neil,

"one of those who claim...." sorry, didn't mean that in a pejorative sense at all!.

Although I don't hear it myself, and I am in opposition (logically at least), I certainly don't try to traduce what other people hear by telling them that it is theoretically improbable or impossible. I have never tried an ABX trial myself, and am interested that your results suggest strongly that there is something going on. I am interested in what mechanism might be at work with a view to improving the playback solution.

Glad we agree that 1) and 3) should sound identical... on the fringes of the FLAC vs. WAV debate you have quite a few who can't accept that compression/expansion of the data in a FLAC container is lossless, so I'm happy we're not having that discussion!. There is no voodoo at work here, just a provably correct algorithm that is fully reversible despite what TAS or others might say.

Regards,
Alex

Yomanze

30-03-2012, 22:33

Hi Neil,

"one of those who claim...." sorry, didn't mean that in a pejorative sense at all!.

>>Don't worry I just smiled and found it funny, no offense taken!

Although I don't hear it myself, and I am in opposition (logically at least), I certainly don't try to traduce what other people hear by telling them that it is theoretically improbable or impossible. I have never tried an ABX trial myself, and am interested that your results suggest strongly that there is something going on. I am interested in what mechanism might be at work with a view to improving the playback solution.

>>I believe this is a question of hardware over software. Battery powered SSD "ultrabook" and linux may well be the way to go! Another consideration is the computer's power supply / power draw (have really noticed plugging in laptops increases hiss on my power line).

Glad we agree that 1) and 3) should sound identical... on the fringes of the FLAC vs. WAV debate you have quite a few who can't accept that compression/expansion of the data in a FLAC container is lossless, so I'm happy we're not having that discussion!. There is no voodoo at work here, just a provably correct algorithm that is fully reversible despite what TAS or others might say.

>>Yes I wouldn't suggest that a 'zipped' and 'unzipped' file are made of different stuff uncompressed, but WAV is a 'step closer' to the original, and for some reason this sort of stuff seems to matter a lot in HiFi! I guess that's why British high end classics are always minimal!

Regards,
Alex

Regards,

Neil

AlfaGTV

31-03-2012, 08:48

I have done some experimenting using a source WAV that was encoded into both FLAC and ALAC (Apple Lossless). I believe that the audio representation from the WAV was the more enjoyable, more calm, more space around the musicians, less intrusive. The losslessly compressed files sounded a little less 'focused' and less relaxing to listen to. Alright, the differences are not huge but discernible.

Anyhow, the FLAC and ALAC files were decoded back into WAV files and their CRC was compared to the source WAV: All identical, no differences whatsoever.
So in my book there are no problems associated with converting files between these formats (and also AIFF, as later verified) if you should change your mind on what player or format might suit you best.
Personally i have chosen AIFF as it carries tags, sounds the best and is compatible with my preferred players. (iTunes/Amarra, Sonos, iTunes/AirportExpress, J River Media Center)

Br Mike

bobbasrah

31-03-2012, 09:07

I believe this is a question of hardware over software. Battery powered SSD "ultrabook" and linux may well be the way to go! Another consideration is the computer's power supply / power draw (have really noticed plugging in laptops increases hiss on my power line).

Yes I wouldn't suggest that a 'zipped' and 'unzipped' file are made of different stuff uncompressed, but WAV is a 'step closer' to the original, and for some reason this sort of stuff seems to matter a lot in HiFi! I guess that's why British high end classics are always minimal!

It seems to be fairly clear that it is not the file that is the issue but how it is processed, either hardware or software, or indeed a combination, if we neglect the onward DAC connection as being irrelevant to the process stream.:scratch:

Although I can understand where SSDs PSUs and indeed Linux may well be the answer for some, it absolutely baffles me why my own machine runs standard PSU, standard SATA drives, and unchopped Win7/64, a combination which should be disastrous according to some. And yet, not a single fault on playback, no difference between FLAC and WAV, nada.
Although the player used here is built on Open Source, it still runs on the Windows platform.
Although I do not want the problem Neil, it remains something of an enigma.:mental:

Yomanze

31-03-2012, 15:18

[QUOTE=Yomanze;312338]I believe this is a question of hardware over software. Battery powered SSD "ultrabook" and linux may well be the way to go! Another consideration is the computer's power supply / power draw (have really noticed plugging in laptops increases hiss on my power line).

Yes I wouldn't suggest that a 'zipped' and 'unzipped' file are made of different stuff uncompressed, but WAV is a 'step closer' to the original, and for some reason this sort of stuff seems to matter a lot in HiFi! I guess that's why British high end classics are always minimal!/QUOTE]

It seems to be fairly clear that it is not the file that is the issue but how it is processed, either hardware or software, or indeed a combination, if we neglect the onward DAC connection as being irrelevant to the process stream.:scratch:

Although I can understand where SSDs PSUs and indeed Linux may well be the answer for some, it absolutely baffles me why my own machine runs standard PSU, standard SATA drives, and unchopped Win7/64, a combination which should be disastrous according to some. And yet, not a single fault on playback, no difference between FLAC and WAV, nada.
Although the player used here is built on Open Source, it still runs on the Windows platform.
Although I do not want the problem Neil, it remains something of an enigma.:mental:

In my view Windows can still output as perfect as possible audio in relation to any other operating system.

I mention Linux for reasons of overall stability e.g. leaving unbooted for months at a time as a music server with no crashes or loss of performance.

This 'enigma' you speak of is exactly the same as I feel with cables! I can understand poorly designed or deliberately coloured cables, but with pro-grade, "proper" cables vs. certain alternatives there is a difference that can easily be distinguished in a blind test.

Alfa's comment about AIFF sounding better than WAV, this is an interesting comment have never used AIFF before.

AlfaGTV

03-04-2012, 18:13

Alfa's comment about AIFF sounding better than WAV, this is an interesting comment have never used AIFF before.

Apologies, it was not my intention to convey that AIFF sound better than WAV, i meant it sounds better than the compressed formats. (Lossless or not)

However i do think it does sound equal to WAV, but have the advantage of carrying tags.

Br Mike

nat8808

14-11-2012, 15:24

So try copying a vinyl record to HDD on a computer then.
You can't.
It is possible to get a representation of the record by recording it digitally, hence my comment.
You can no more "rip" a vinyl record than you can a cassette tape.

I hear the term "vinyl rip" being bandied about and it is incorrect.
I'd prefer to hear the term "needledrop" as it's a more accurate way of describing things :)

Unfortunately the link you posted up before (the wikipedia one) does say that ripping includes digitising...

However, wikipedia is written by a few people bothering to keep it updated and 'correct' in their eyes. Nothing stops these people from being equally wrong as anyone else - all it does is reflect a common mis-conception.

I'd hate to think what a wikipedia article on the word "Literally" would say !

Ripping is about taking data UNCHANGED from one format to the other.

It is impossible to transfer vinyl to a computer without recording all the effects of the cartridge, tonearm, turntable, phono stage, preamp, A/D stage.
Change equipment and the resulting digital file will sound very different.

i.e. it is a recording with as many sonic variables as any studio recording - type of mic, mic pre-amp, desk etc etc

Citing other people mis-using the term is no form of evidence!