[marklivia]

It's my understanding that AIFF is a bit perfect copy and the best format to use w/ a Mac for copying a disc to another disc. Is it also the best format to use when using a Mac (or Ipod) to stream music to a dac ? Some have suggested WAV files for that application. What is the difference?
I just want the highest quality possible not worrying about file size.   Thanks guys,  Mark

[The Computer Audiophile]

For sound quality I don't believe there is a difference between these two uncompressed formats. I prefer AIFF because it works much better with cover art.

[Crimson]

AIFF and WAV are both identical copies of audio CD data. AIFF supports ID3 tagging whereas WAV does not (once you port WAV files, you lose all associated tag data because it is not part of the file).

[Daedalus Audio]

what about apple lossless?  is that as good as AIFF?

[yooper]

Yes, ALAC (Apple Lossless) also creates a bit perfect copy of the original cd. 

Mark

[The Computer Audiophile]

Yes, ALAC (Apple Lossless) also creates a bit perfect copy of the original cd. 

Mark

Hey Mark, I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I posted this comment in another circle the other day and I stick by it. Don't take offense because I am not talking about you in the comment below

"More and more people are coming out of the woodwork in support of Uncompressed over Lossless Compression. I won't go back to lossless compression as I find it fatiguing over long periods of time. I spoke with a very high end manufacturer Friday night about this very topic and he said they have done tests with their gear and notice a difference every time. One problem is all the hardcore fanatics who jump all over those of us who prefer uncompressed music. Why would Joe Sixpack voluntarily put himself through the ringer in one of these forums by stating he notices a difference between uncompressed and compressed music. I am used to it by now and I trust my ears over anyone's opinion."

[dspringham]

I would like to see more comments and discussion on the comparison between Apple Lossless and AIFF. It seems to be such a subjective judgement that can be reflective of the particular individuals playback chain. Is there any definitive information to suggest that one format is superior to the other? Even though data storage is relatively cheap these days, why waste space on an uncompressed format if there is no absolute prroof of it's sonic superiority. Maybe it just boils down to opinions as in the case of "what CD player sounds better".

From what I understand, ALAC is a bit perfect copy of the original so how can it get any better than this?

Looking forward to further comments.

David

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey David - You are exactly right when you say it all boils down to opinion. It would be so nice if there was one format that was superior and we all agreed and embarked on perfecting that one format. But, as usual in high end audio no such luck.

[nicksgem10s]

I do not profess to know all the technical differences in the different file formats and really do not care to.  What I have done over the last several years is trust my ears.

I prefer the sound of WAV files to the ALAC files I have had on my computer. I believe I was able to identify more of a difference in file formats through headphones.  I did not do any double blind tests or scientific study.  I did not do any measurements or anything scientific. 

To me the WAV files make the most sense.  I do not use cover art though it might be cool.

It may just be voodoo but I like knowing I am listening to the original file in all its digital glory.

With affordable storage readily available I can only see the cover art and tags as being a reason for using one of the other formats.

Kudos to those involved in the starting of "The Apple Core".

I would like to see some discussion in the near future about using flash memory (usb stick variety) vs. traditional spinning hard drive for music playback via iTunes on a Mac.  While I have not compared yet, I have been told by some folks that it is sonically superior since there are no moving parts which makes a lot of sense to me.  Obviously large flash memory is still very expensive but I have seen some much better pricing on 8GB usb sticks.

I plan on getting every last % of quality out of using a computer for music playback.

Thanks for the effort from everyone who is part of "The Apple Core"

I also have been reading the interesting stuff about USB cables.  I want to find out first hand and plan on it soon.

I honestly believe just about everything makes a difference in sound from wire, cables, outlets, power quality, component and speaker break-in, etc.  I am not too sure about clever clocks and brilliant pebbles.  I have not heard or tried them so I probably shouldn't assume anything.  A person has to draw a line somewhere.   

-Nick

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey Nick - I'm thinking about building a Mac Mini with a solid state drive so I can remove the spinning hard drive. This could be pretty good.

[JeffB]

But lossless is just what it means. 
If you losslessly compress file A and name it B.  Then uncompress file B and call it C.
Files A and C will be bit for bit identical.

There are two possibilities for error here.  The compress/decompress functions are not exact inverses due to a coding error.
However, this could be easily checked for any song that you wanted to A/B compare.

There is a timing issue on playback, but I don't really see how.
At 44.1 kHz there is roughly a sample every 22.7 microseconds.
A non real-time O.S. can't really handle any kind of precision better than 1ms, so the the sound card has dedicated hardware to provide the proper playback timing.  The audio application simply has to keep the audio queue in the sound card filled and then the sound card will play this data back at the proper timing.  I don't know how big these queues are but if they hold more than 1 second of audio which is likely, then I don't see the PC having any trouble decompressing and keeping the audio buffer full.  Besides if something like an anti-virus program was delaying the system enough to prevent the buffer from filling, then I would think you would here audible skipping.

I guess I just don't see any physical reason for why a WAV file could be different than a losslessly compressed file.
Ah ha, but then I found the following.  See next post.

[JeffB]

The following copied from
from http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t38817.html


Alex B
Nov 16 2005, 10:10
QUOTE(Otto42 @ Nov 16 2005, 05:22 PM)
When it comes to lossless formats, they *all* have gapless playback support, as far as the format goes. If it didn't, then it couldn't be "lossless".

Yes, the player itself has to have gapless support for it to work, and iTunes lacks that, but this has nothing to do with the format's support for "gapless". It's lossless. It's gapless by definition.
*

ALAC files encoded with iTunes 5/QT7 or newer simply don't have gapless playback support at the moment. (Unless a player that I'm not aware of can do it.)

A couple of weeks ago when I tested the iTunes de-emphasis function I actually couldn't find any program that can play the current ALAC format besides iTunes and J. River Media Center, which uses the external QT engine for decoding ALAC files. (MC can play gaplessly only internally decoded formats.)

It is possible to convert the lossless & gapless ALAC files to wave (or AIFF) format with iTunes and play the converted files gaplessly with other players, but that would not be ALAC playback anymore.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: typo
davechapman
Nov 16 2005, 10:36
QUOTE(Alex B @ Nov 16 2005, 05:39 AM)
In practice, from the user point of view ALAC is not lossless at the moment, because there are no players that can play the current version gaplessly.
*



The format itself provides everything a player needs to implement gapless, and there is an open source decoder available. So there is no technical reason preventing gapless ALAC.

Rockbox enables the iriver H1x0 DAPs to play back ALAC gaplessly. Ports of Rockbox to the iriver H3x0 and the iPod are in progress, and when they are finished, those devices will also be able to play ALAC gaplessly.

I thought foobar had an ALAC decoder, or was that abandoned?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Otto42
Nov 16 2005, 11:13
QUOTE(Duble0Syx @ Nov 16 2005, 10:55 AM)
FLAC is supported on just about every player and is supported on every platform.
*


I think you missed my point. People don't really need "cross platform compatibility" quite as much as they need "compatibility with the hardware that they have". Yes, it's nice that FLAC plays on lots of things. But if you don't actually have any of those things, then it's rather a moot point, isn't it? The Squeezebox is a fine device, and if I owned one, I might care about what it would play. I don't own one though. I do own an iPod, however.

QUOTE(Alex B @ Nov 16 2005, 11:10 AM)
ALAC files encoded with iTunes 5/QT7 or newer simply don't have gapless playback support at the moment. (Unless a player that I'm not aware of can do it.)

Which just points to what I said earlier. It's not the format, it's the player of that format.

AAC files encoded with iTunes lack gapless support in the format itself. There's a null padding on the beginning/end of the file and no indication of where that song actually begins/ends. Therefore it's actually *impossible* to play these files with true gapless support. In any player. Ever. Nero gets around this by a tricky bit in the MPEG4 wrapper, so Nero-encoded AAC files do support gapless.

Same goes for MP3 files. Gapless MP3 files are done by adding code to the LAME header which signals where the end of the song really is. The MP3 format itself pads the audio to an integer multiple of 1152 samples. Without that LAME header, MP3 is not gapless.

ALAC files encoded with iTunes, on the other hand, actually decode to the original data. Bit for bit. That's what lossless means. So if a player implemented gapless playback and could playback these files, then it could play them back gaplessly. The format itself supports gapless playback (as all lossless formats do).

Whether or not any player actually *does* this is irrelevant. The format itself remains unchanged whether a player implements it a certain way or not. If you say that the ALAC format does not support gapless, then you're just wrong. What you mean is that no current player will play them back gaplessly. But the format itself supports gapless, by design. Again, all lossless formats support gapless. They have to, they're "lossless".

And even then you're not entirely correct, as the open source ALAC format plugin implemented for foobar 2000 would support gapless playback, if it worked properly. I don't know what the status on that plugin is. It worked at one point, then there were issues with it. But nevertheless, it would do gapless, if it was working. It's the player, not the format.

[JeffB]

If that is too much to read, it basically says
the iTunes application doesn't support gapless playback of ALAC files.
It is a problem with iTunes and not ALAC per say.
There is some confusion as to whether any software plays back ALAC gaplessly.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey JeffB - Is there any newer information. Newer than 2005?

[JeffB]

I don't know.  I am not a MAC person.  I use FLAC files on Linux.

[The Computer Audiophile]

That's cool. I was just curious.

[yooper]

Hey Mark, I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I posted this comment in another circle the other day and I stick by it. Don't take offense because I am not talking about you in the comment below

Hello,

No offense taken.  My mind is always open to an intellectual discussion.  There are many people with much more experience and knowledge than I have and if can learn something through their experience that is a benefit to me, I'm thankful. 

While I realize there are many factors involved to whether one may hear a difference, including opinions, I'm certainly going to give it a try.

Mark

[yooper]

If that is too much to read, it basically says
the iTunes application doesn't support gapless playback of ALAC files.
It is a problem with iTunes and not ALAC per say.
There is some confusion as to whether any software plays back ALAC gaplessly.

Jeff,

Since the introduction of iTunes 7 (which came out around a year later than the post you mentioned) gapless playback has been enabled.  Although, gapless playback will only work with albums which are truly gapless, and to my knowledge, wont remove gaps which are part of the original file.

*Edit*  Link... http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304362

Mark

[pardales]

If you originally ripped your CD's in ALAC, would converting them to .WAV or AIFF be genuine -- meaning, the same as if it was originally ripped in those formats?

Heck I wonder if I can reliably--without knowing which was playing--tell the difference between AAC and ALAC. Has anyone been brave enough to try that experiment (or the equivalent with other formats)?

Best,

[Crimson]

If you originally ripped your CD's in ALAC, would converting them to .WAV or AIFF be genuine -- meaning, the same as if it was originally ripped in those formats?

Heck I wonder if I can reliably--without knowing which was playing--tell the difference between AAC and ALAC. Has anyone been brave enough to try that experiment (or the equivalent with other formats)?

Best,

I can hear differences in tracks ripped up to, and including, 320 kbps vs AIFF, or at least I think I can. When it comes to lossless vs AIFF, it depends on the quality (and quantity) of the imbibed aged refreshment.