[jakepunk]

All lossless codecs sound exactly the same.  They produce bit-for-bit reproductions of original .wav files.  There is no sonic difference between FLAC and Apple Lossless and .wav files.  The pulse code modulated data is exactly the same when the file is decoded and inputted to the DAC.  The only difference in the human experience is in the usability of ripping programs, not the lossless codecs they employ.

I think people have a hard time understanding what a lossless codec is.  They see the word "encoding" and think that data is lost.  It is not.  Comparing FLAC and Apple Lossless is not like comparing MP3 and Ogg Vorbis or AAC.  There is no loss of data, it is merely a compression of a .wav file.  People cannot seem to get their heads wrapped around that concept.  I think people are so used to audio formats being lossy that they think that anything other than a .wav is not pure.

All lossless formats - past, present, and future -- sound exactly the same.  Any questions?

[Joules]

Any questions?

 . . . what?

But seriously whats the difference in size of the files? and dose it take any more processing ram to play a FLAC or whatever?

[sts9fan]

With all the things that audiophiles claim to hear differences in do you really think they will believe this??

[PhilNYC]

There is no loss of data, it is merely a compression of a .wav file

But isn't there processing required to restore the data from the compressed file?  And if so, wouldn't the decompression process possibly create jitter based on the processor clock and circuitry used?

(I have never compared FLAC vs. Apple Lossless, so I'm just talking in theory)...

[woodsyi]

Because of this "controversy," I have decided to rip to .WAV.  Actually, FLAC saved 50% disk space but I am trying out a different decoding system that uses a different compression format.  So I had to screw the compression and rip to .WAV. Both play .WAV files.  I got a TB storage and only a couple of thousand CDs.  I will be alright.

[nathanm]

I have a feeling that playing CDs in actual CD players in years to come (if you can find one in grandpa's attic that is) will be as quaint and nostalgic as vinyl is now.  People will be saying, "Hey man, what's that thing?"  "It's a compact disc, it's got uncompressed, lossless audio on it!"  "Wowee man that's so retro, I've got all 350,000 of my albums on this silicone cube...oh crap I think it fell through a hole in my pocket!"

[PhilNYC]

"Wowee man that's so retro, I've got all 350,000 of my albums on this silicone cube...oh crap I think it fell through a hole in my pocket!"

What's an "album"?    

[Folsom]

Apple Lossless is a "Lossless" compression sure...

However Itunes on the other hand is crap. Itunes takes shortcuts to cut down on processing power etc... It is ment to please EVERY ONE not audiophiles. The difference between playing .wav's with Itunes and Foobar2000 are amazing. The switching from Itunes to Foobar2000 saved my PC audio from being trashed all togather.

If you could play Apple Lossless in Foobar2000 or another good program there would be nothing wrong with it. The thing is we know Itunes is what plays Apple Lossless so it will always be a poor medium choice based on what you can play it through.

Itunes sounds terrible in comparrison. Try it out.... No joke at all. Sonically what ever the difference is, it is beyond noticable.

[skrivis]

I have a feeling that playing CDs in actual CD players in years to come (if you can find one in grandpa's attic that is) will be as quaint and nostalgic as vinyl is now.  People will be saying, "Hey man, what's that thing?"  "It's a compact disc, it's got uncompressed, lossless audio on it!"  "Wowee man that's so retro, I've got all 350,000 of my albums on this silicone cube...oh crap I think it fell through a hole in my pocket!"

They could always surgically implant it so it can't be lost.

Or maybe people will wear their data like they now wear various objects in piercings?  

[d.f]

Apple Lossless is a "Lossless" compression sure...

However Itunes on the other hand is crap. Itunes takes shortcuts to cut down on processing power etc... It is ment to please EVERY ONE not audiophiles. The difference between playing .wav's with Itunes and Foobar2000 are amazing. The switching from Itunes to Foobar2000 saved my PC audio from being trashed all togather.

If you could play Apple Lossless in Foobar2000 or another good program there would be nothing wrong with it. The thing is we know Itu ...

can anyone else confirm this...? would it be the same case on a mac..? mac's are very common in recording studio's and i;ve never heard (i work in music) that iTunes was of poor sound quality....

[skrivis]

can anyone else confirm this...? would it be the same case on a mac..? mac's are very common in recording studio's and i;ve never heard (i work in music) that iTunes was of poor sound quality....

I haven't noticed anything actually. Audio and video seem better on my Mac, and it's an old one, while my Windows PC is a 6 month old Dell.

I just have some Altec computer speakers hooked up to it though. I don't have any of the audio outs going to my stereo system....

[Watson]

can anyone else confirm this...? would it be the same case on a mac..? mac's are very common in recording studio's and i;ve never heard (i work in music) that iTunes was of poor sound quality....

iTunes is bit-perfect on Macs, out of the box.  There are no problems with iTunes sound quality on Macs.

iTunes on Windows uses the Windows sound architecture, so it is vulnerable to resampling by kMixer (the Windows kernel mixer).  This means that on many sound cards, the output is not bit-perfect.  Some people use other players like Foobar2k in order to bypass kMixer using either kernel streaming or ASIO.  This is too complex a topic to discuss in this thread.  There's a lot of info about it out on the net if you do a search.

Anyway, on OS X you don't have to worry about any of this.  Supposedly Windows Vista is also going to eliminate kMixer.  We'll see.

[Folsom]

You probably will not notice with just some Altecs. Hook up your main stereo even with a RatShack cable from mini to RCA...

It could be different on Apples. However on PC's there is a huge sonic difference. This has been detectible on every computer I have tried it with.

Every time again and again you can hear every thing clearer, the volume levels are appropriate. With Itunes volume levels of different sounds are way out of wack. You simply lack a lot of dynamic range with Itunes on a PC.

I doubt any one with an Apple in a recording studio uses Itunes for any thing   .

[d.f]

I doubt any one with an Apple in a recording studio uses Itunes for any thing   .

that's true, but i think iTunes uses the quicktime codecs, the same ones that protools, cubase and logic use. so the sound quality would be identical between programmes. reading some of the responses, it seems that it's a PC / Microsoft issue.

but getting to your origonal point, thanks for setting my mind at ease on the FLAC vs Apple Lossless debate. i don't think i need to re-rip all my CD's to FLAC / WAV now.

[philipp]

Hallelujah! Thank you Watson for finally explaining this discrepancy. I could not for the life of me understand why some people have such issues with iTunes as a ripper. Now I know it's because they're using it on a Windows box and I'm using it on a Mac -- we're getting completely different results. Doh!!

[pm314]

Just to clarify....you are saying that iTunes playback on a PC is crap but ripping should be the same regardless...right

[Folsom]

Just to clarify....you are saying that iTunes playback on a PC is crap but ripping should be the same regardless...right

Between WMP and Itunes? Hm EAC uses every feature and beyond... I doubt that Itunes does as good of a job. However I find EAC has the ability to over-do-it. The difference between the most intense rip possible and just a moderate does not seem to be huge. I think it is more about the quality of condition of the CD.

I use the "accuracy only is important" or what ever standard setting on EAC and find it to work well in a timely manner. Changing setting for any thing else I would only be interested in if I where to be re-mastering a CD or some thing way beyond normal listening. Dedicating six hours to EAC is ridiculous.

Personally I find Itunes to rip slightly faster. However if you look through the features of it's ripping it does not seem to do as much. I have never seen it "error correction" before that is for certain. (ripped with Itunes and EAC, EAC found problems or re-read data to make sure it was right) I am going to go wit the simple EAC settings even though it is moe complicated to use.

Regardless if you have a PC forget Itunes..... Apples and Itunes are all good? Hurray! Itunes has a much better GUI, oh wait Foobar2000 does not even have one..... Ugh.

[JDUBS]

Take the guesswork out of setting up EAC properly:

http://www.carltonbale.com/projects/cd_audio_extraction/

Also, a good cd drive is important.  I use an external Plextor Premium CD-RW with very good results.

-Jim

[Folsom]

Take the guesswork out of setting up EAC properly:

http://www.carltonbale.com/projects/cd_audio_extraction/

Also, a good cd drive is important.  I use an external Plextor Premium CD-RW with very good results.

-Jim

Well depending on your CD drive you might want to or not want to use all of those features.

I can tell you right now on my computer it would take forever to rip with those setting. It would of taken forever on my desktop where I used a Nec 3500a..... Who has an entire day to devote to maybe three extractions tops?

[jon_010101]

There is no loss of data, it is merely a compression of a .wav file

But isn't there processing required to restore the data from the compressed file?  And if so, wouldn't the decompression process possibly create jitter based on the processor clock and circuitry used?

(I have never compared FLAC vs. Apple Lossless, so I'm just talking in theory)...

No worries, there is no jitter until it leaves the computer's control.  If there's one thing compys can do, it is keeping data in good shape along the way.  Everything would be error-corrected and bit-correct unless it was routed through some other software that mangled it up willingly, or to an imperfect output device (sound card, or a digital out).  Of course, FLAC or Apple Lossless would likely be taking the same path out of the machine anyways.  Avoiding jitter and errors is a really good reason to use USB or ethernet to connect a DAC.