So Apple Lossless isn't doing it for me

[TheLimpOne]

Yeah, Apple Lossless isn't really Lossless when it comes to longer songs that are say 12+ minutes, the quality gets drastically lower. For instance, I just ripped a song that was 20 minutes long and the quality came out 300 kbps. Anyone who's done VBR knows this is the case with MP3's and such as well.

So yeah, what do people do when you want CBR at the highest possible quality? Or is there an alternative where I don't have to deal with degradation of quality with long songs?

[Blue Velvet]

Apple Lossless is exactly that, regardless of how long the file length is. The overall bit rate will vary depending on the file.

[TheLimpOne]

No... VBR works to get good quality, but at the same time maintain a smaller file size. Unfortunately with real long songs it will kill the quality in order to retain the small file size, because file size is the biggest priority to it.

[Blue Velvet]

No... VBR works to get good quality, but at the same time maintain a smaller file size. Unfortunately with real long songs it will kill the quality in order to retain the small file size, because file size is the biggest priority to it.

AppleLossless doesn't work like this at all. File size has nothing to do with it. You're completely on the wrong track about this. Go do some reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless); it's a perfectly lossless format much like FLAC. It doesn't reduce bit rates to fit into a given file size.

[Teej guy]

Yeah, Apple Lossless isn't really Lossless when it comes to longer songs that are say 12+ minutes, the quality gets drastically lower. For instance, I just ripped a song that was 20 minutes long and the quality came out 300 kbps. Anyone who's done VBR knows this is the case with MP3's and such as well.

So yeah, what do people do when you want CBR at the highest possible quality? Or is there an alternative where I don't have to deal with degradation of quality with long songs?

This is not how VBR works with MP3, and it's certainly not how Apple Lossless, or any other lossless codec works. The answer is in the name "lossless codec"...the information coming out when you decode a lossless file is bit-identical to the information that went in. Period. (as long as everything is functioning properly/the encoder supports the format you're putting into it)

As I said, this is the case with Apple Lossless, FLAC, Windows Media Lossless...any and all lossless codecs operating normally.

No... VBR works to get good quality, but at the same time maintain a smaller file size. Unfortunately with real long songs it will kill the quality in order to retain the small file size, because file size is the biggest priority to it.

This is wrong. With VBR MP3, a longer track will not yield a worse sounding track. Take V0 encoding with LAME for instance. It's attempting to render a nominal level of transparency to the original audio throughout the material you put into it. The way it allocates bits is determined by the "complexity" of the sound, not the length of the track.

[TheLimpOne]

Have you ever ripped CD's with lengthy audio files in VBR? You will notice a pattern: longer songs = lower quality, everytime. You don't believe me, give it a go on one of your own CD's.

I'll give you an example with the couple songs I just ripped:
Filter - I'm Not The Only One, 5:50 (919 kbps, 38.6 MB)
Filter - Miss Blue, 19:49 (300 kbps, 42.8 MB)

As far as the complexity of the tracks, that is true, but file size plays a factor as well... people will usually go VBR for decent quality AND to conserve space, I don't see why anyone would go with VBR otherwise.

Either way, I don't want to argue anymore about it, I'd much rather have someone suggest some alternatives to me. P.S. By that I mean highest quality CBR, what would that be?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Have you ever ripped CD's with lengthy audio files in VBR? You will notice a pattern: longer songs = lower quality, everytime. You don't believe me, give it a go on one of your own CD's.

I'll give you an example with the couple songs I just ripped:
Filter - I'm Not The Only One, 5:50 (919 kbps, 38.6 MB)
Filter - Miss Blue, 19:49 (300 kbps, 42.8 MB)

Either way, I don't want to argue anymore about it, I'd much rather have someone suggest some alternatives to me.

the only competitive alternative is FLAC and you're wrong, Lossless means lossless.

[TheLimpOne]

Really, lossless would mean ripping every song in 1440 kbps, period, none of the VBR they got going for it. There is no reason that a song of constant high complexity at 20 minutes should come out with 300 kbps, none.

[Blue Velvet]

Have you ever ripped CD's with lengthy audio files in VBR? You will notice a pattern: longer songs = lower quality, everytime. You don't believe me, give it a go on one of your own CD's.

I'll give you an example with the couple songs I just ripped:
Filter - I'm Not The Only One, 5:50 (919 kbps, 38.6 MB)
Filter - Miss Blue, 19:49 (300 kbps, 42.8 MB)

Either way, I don't want to argue anymore about it, I'd much rather have someone suggest some alternatives to me.


ALAC, just like FLAC, uses VBR as standard. I have a number of CDs ripped in Apple Lossless with long tracks including some over 40 minutes. You're utterly confused and instead of listening to people telling you that you're wrong, you've decided not to listen to them or deal with the facts, or go check up the pros and cons. (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison)

If a long track has lots of silent or quiet passages, then the bitrate will be lower. It doesn't reduce the quality. It's a true lossless format and if you think you know better than the people over at Hydrogen Audio (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32111), then there's no hope.

:rolleyes:

[Teej guy]

Really, lossless would mean ripping every song in 1440 kbps, period, none of the VBR they got going for it. There is no reason that a song of constant high complexity at 20 minutes should come out with 300 kbps, none.

No. Think of a lossless codec like a zip file. It makes your Word documents smaller, but you aren't missing a bunch of text when you unzip it. It's the same concept.

Lossless means NO LOSS. None. Think anything else and you are deluding yourself.

HERE IS PROOF if you need it: You can test this by taking a wav file, converting it to any lossless codec, converting it back to wav and then comparing it against the original wav in a multitrack audio editor. You can invert the phase on either file and you will get digital silence which means the files are identical.

You've already got your own answer. The highest quality CBR you can get is completely uncompressed AIFF or WAV etc. It would also be bit identical to a decode of any Apple Lossless/FLAC/etc encoded audio.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Really, lossless would mean ripping every song in 1440 kbps, period, none of the VBR they got going for it. There is no reason that a song of constant high complexity at 20 minutes should come out with 300 kbps, none.

that's not true, you really can't go by the bitrate with a lossless encoder, it varies because it compresses that way. When it compresses, however, there is no loss of quality.

[ashjamben]

think you need to start just listening to wav's, but i feel sorry for you if you're really bothered about getting that kind of quality. i mean, i rip all my tracks in lossless just because i want a good copy of it incase i loose the cd, but you're getting abit over the top. just start listening to the music instead.

[c-Row]

HERE IS PROOF if you need it: You can test this by taking a wav file, converting it to any lossless codec, converting it back to wav and then comparing it against the original wav in a multitrack audio editor. You can invert the phase on either file and you will get digital silence which means the files are identical.

I already did that. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=311789) :p

@OP

I guess you are doing something wrong then.

[Teej guy]

I already did that. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=311789) :p

If that's not enough for the OP then nothing is :)

[Jolly Jimmy]

Have you ever ripped CD's with lengthy audio files in VBR? You will notice a pattern: longer songs = lower quality, everytime. You don't believe me, give it a go on one of your own CD's.

I'll give you an example with the couple songs I just ripped:
Filter - I'm Not The Only One, 5:50 (919 kbps, 38.6 MB)
Filter - Miss Blue, 19:49 (300 kbps, 42.8 MB)

As far as the complexity of the tracks, that is true, but file size plays a factor as well... people will usually go VBR for decent quality AND to conserve space, I don't see why anyone would go with VBR otherwise.

Either way, I don't want to argue anymore about it, I'd much rather have someone suggest some alternatives to me. P.S. By that I mean highest quality CBR, what would that be?

The bitrate you see is just an average. That's why your longer songs are showing lower rates. Don't pay attention to it. It means nothing.

[ChrisA]

Yeah, Apple Lossless isn't really Lossless when it comes to longer songs that are say 12+ minutes, the quality gets drastically lower. For instance, I just ripped a song that was 20 minutes long and the quality came out 300 kbps....

You can't look at the bit rate to determine quality. The only way to is to a round trip conversion. Rip the CD to Apple losses and then convert it back to CD and then compare the original and the CD you burned bit by bit. They should be identical.

If you are seeing 300K bits per second that just means the track compresses very well.




I'll give you an example with the couple songs I just ripped:
Filter - I'm Not The Only One, 5:50 (919 kbps, 38.6 MB)
Filter - Miss Blue, 19:49 (300 kbps, 42.8 MB)

The bit rate 300 vs. 919 is not an indicator of audio quality. The ONLY valid indicator is to uncompress the files and compare them to the original uncompressed file. An extream example of this is if you record 1 hour of silence. It will compress down to almost nothing using either VBR or lossless but the quality will be very good.

If you want to tell us the quality is poor show us the difference between the uncompressed song and the CD track. Then people will listen.

[Luap]

Forget the numbers and forget everything the MP3ophile kiddies say on music torrent sites for a moment. Lossless is lossless. Flac, Apple Lossless, whatever, its all Lossless. So its identical to the source CD. Hence why it is called lossless. No point saying you wont argue about it when you are wrong and need to accept that basic fact right there.

Apple Lossless not doing it for you because the numbers don't make sense to you is stupid. Listen to it. If it sounds good, it is good. And thats all there is to it.

[ItsJustDave]

A little late to the party, but I figured I ought to chime in.

Have you ever ripped CD's with lengthy audio files in VBR? You will notice a pattern: longer songs = lower quality, everytime. You don't believe me, give it a go on one of your own CD's.

I'll give you an example with the couple songs I just ripped:
Filter - I'm Not The Only One, 5:50 (919 kbps, 38.6 MB)
Filter - Miss Blue, 19:49 (300 kbps, 42.8 MB)

Have you tried actually listening to your music?

If you had, you might have realized that "Miss Blue" is a track that happens to include an untitled hidden bonus track. That hidden bonus track is separated from "Miss Blue" by an extensive amount of silence. Lossless encoders eat silence for breakfast. As a result the average bitrate of the file (file size/track length) experiences a huge drop.

[Mattaut]

Did you actually listen to both of them and hear a difference in quality rather than seeing a difference in quality? What you can hear is a lot more important than some numbers, unless you are just interested in watching the bit rate for 20 minutes instead of listening to the music lol. I can't believe how stubborn you're being about this, you sound like a 2-year-old. Why even post if you aren't willing to accept advice?

[Teej guy]

Did you actually listen to both of them and hear a difference in quality rather than seeing a difference in quality? What you can hear is a lot more important than some numbers, unless you are just interested in watching the bit rate for 20 minutes instead of listening to the music lol. I can't believe how stubborn you're being about this, you sound like a 2-year-old. Why even post if you aren't willing to accept advice?

Accept advice? What about accepting fact? ;)

[ashjamben]

Did you actually listen to both of them and hear a difference in quality rather than seeing a difference in quality? What you can hear is a lot more important than some numbers, unless you are just interested in watching the bit rate for 20 minutes instead of listening to the music lol. I can't believe how stubborn you're being about this, you sound like a 2-year-old. Why even post if you aren't willing to accept advice?

maybe i should change my signature to:

audiophile: one who listens to the stereo, and looks at the bit rate, rather than the music.

:p

[ChrisA]

maybe i should change my signature to:

audiophile: one who listens to the stereo, and looks at the bit rate, rather than the music.

:p

You're right. There are audiophile who don't really even listen to their equipment. For some reading spec sheets and review articles and collecting equipment is enough.

[Teej guy]

maybe i should change my signature to:

audiophile: one who listens to the stereo, and looks at the bit rate, rather than the music.

:p

Your signature is a bit of a sweeping generalised statement though. I'm both a musician and an audiophile. I love hearing music reproduced really really well through a good system, but for me the point is to get closer to the music. I wouldn't waste my time listening to music I didn't like just because it was a fantastic recording.

[ashjamben]

Your signature is a bit of a sweeping generalised statement though. I'm both a musician and an audiophile. I love hearing music reproduced really really well through a good system, but for me the point is to get closer to the music. I wouldn't waste my time listening to music I didn't like just because it was a fantastic recording.

i totally agree, i too am a musician and want to hear good quality recordings. but some people just get too wound up in file quality, speaker quality, cables, etc and loose track of what it's really all about. they're the people i'm poking fun at.

[DoFoT9]

OP: why are you using VBR if you want Lossless?? that doesnt make any sense to me. didnt even know you could use VBR with Lossless!!!

[Galley]

1. Variable bitrates depend on the complexity of the music. I have lossless files of acoustic blues songs with bitrates less than 400Kbps.

2. Hidden bonus tracks can give you unusually low bitrates. As an example, I recently ripped a track that have about 4 minutes of silence in it. The resulting bitrate was 500Kbps. Once I edited the track's stop time and re-imported it, the bitrate was 850Kbps.

[Teej guy]

OP: why are you using VBR if you want Lossless?? that doesnt make any sense to me. didnt even know you could use VBR with Lossless!!!

Lossless codecs use VBR, there is no CBR mode.

[DoFoT9]

Lossless codecs use VBR, there is no CBR mode.

well that is just OUTRAGEOUS!!!

its LOSSLESS! not LOSSY!

*stops using lossless*

im sticking to FLAC and AIFF

EDIT: wait are you sure?? are you sure it just doesnt use compression on the files whilst maintaining the 'lossless' quality?

[Teej guy]

well that is just OUTRAGEOUS!!!

its LOSSLESS! not LOSSY!

*stops using lossless*

im sticking to FLAC and AIFF

EDIT: wait are you sure?? are you sure it just doesnt use compression on the files whilst maintaining the 'lossless' quality?

...have you even read the thread?

Lossless codecs don't use bits in the same way a lossy codec does. A lossy codec uses psycho-acoustic modelling to put together something that sounds transparent to the source.

A lossless codec is basically just compression, but using various methods depending on the codec. However, one thing all lossless codecs share is that they are lossless (how many times do we need to say this?)

That's why the thread starter's example of an 18 minute track is 48MB or something. Much of that is a silent gap between the end of the track and a bonus track. The FLAC doesn't need to spend bits on digital silence, so it doesn't. Variable bit-rate. It uses more or less bits depending on how many are needed to reconstruct the source material perfectly/bit-for-bit.

[DoFoT9]

...have you even read the thread?

Lossless codecs don't use bits in the same way a lossy codec does. A lossy codec uses psycho-acoustic modelling to put together something that sounds transparent to the source.

A lossless codec is basically just compression, but using various methods depending on the codec. However, one thing all lossless codecs share is that they are lossless (how many times do we need to say this?)

That's why the thread starter's example of an 18 minute track is 48MB or something. Much of that is a silent gap between the end of the track and a bonus track. The FLAC doesn't need to spend bits on digital silence, so it doesn't. Variable bit-rate. It uses more or less bits depending on how many are needed to reconstruct the source material perfectly/bit-for-bit.

ok i see now. lossless is lossless :p

i dont get why it is VBR but, i thought it would be a constant quality, because its lossless regardless of the fact that if there is a whole orchestra or silence playing.. *confused*

[TuffLuffJimmy]

ok i see now. lossless is lossless :p

i dont get why it is VBR but, i thought it would be a constant quality, because its lossless regardless of the fact that if there is a whole orchestra or silence playing.. *confused*

If it were a constant bit rate and lossless then it wouldn't be a smaller file size than the original file. :rolleyes:

[DoFoT9]

If it were a constant bit rate and lossless then it wouldn't be a smaller file size than the original file. :rolleyes:

then i dont see how it still classifies as lossless.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

then i dont see how it still classifies as lossless.

because the information that is stored in a AIFF file (let's just say this is the original) is analogue. A compressed Apple Lossless file takes that information and expresses it more efficiently with digital expressions that mean what the analogue signal puts out. At least, that's the best I can explain it. Please, for the love of God: quit thinking of it in bit rates!!!

[DoFoT9]

because the information that is stored in a AIFF file (let's just say this is the original) is analogue. A compressed Apple Lossless file takes that information and expresses it more efficiently with digital expressions that mean what the analogue signal puts out. At least, that's the best I can explain it. Please, for the love of God: quit thinking of it in bit rates!!!

hhmm ok i get that first part - the file is converted into digital binary makes sense, but what about the sample rates, modulation and things like that? wouldnt they cause some sort of audio loss (not that we would notice, of course).

and oh, im not thinking in bitrates, thats just an average indicator which nobody cares about :rolleyes:

[TuffLuffJimmy]

hhmm ok i get that first part - the file is converted into digital binary makes sense, but what about the sample rates, modulation and things like that? wouldnt they cause some sort of audio loss (not that we would notice, of course).

and oh, im not thinking in bitrates, thats just an average indicator which nobody cares about :rolleyes:

lossless |ˈlôsləs; ˈläs-|
adjective
having or involving no dissipation of electrical or electromagnetic energy.
• Computing of or relating to data compression without loss of information.

There is no audio loss, even in things that you wouldn't notice (it's all still there)

[DoFoT9]

lossless |ˈlôsləs; ˈläs-|
adjective
having or involving no dissipation of electrical or electromagnetic energy.
• Computing of or relating to data compression without loss of information.

There is no audio loss, even in things that you wouldn't notice (it's all still there)

haha ok thanks for the verification. i got ya now. :)

[rWally]

hhmm ok i get that first part - the file is converted into digital binary makes sense, but what about the sample rates, modulation and things like that? wouldnt they cause some sort of audio loss (not that we would notice, of course).

and oh, im not thinking in bitrates, thats just an average indicator which nobody cares about :rolleyes:

Another way to think about it...

Say you have an uncompressed .wav file. Since it's digital it's made up completely of 0's and 1's. So, say an uncompressed file looks like this:

000110101111111100000

You notice how you get some repeating numbers there? For instance, there are 8 1's in a row. Wouldn't a more efficient use of space be to say '1, repeat 8 times' rather than writing out 1 eight times? This is sort of how compression works. You find patterns and shrink it down to use less space. All the information is there but it just takes up less space on your hard drive.

What an lossless codec does is find ways to shrink down the file size using something like I described above by finding repeating patterns in the file to reduce the file size. All the information is there to bring it back to it's original, full size and both files still contain the same information. The bit rate is calculated by dividing the total size of the file by the length of the song. This is pretty meaningless when you're talking about lossless because all it's telling you is how efficiently the file was compressed and has nothing to do with the actual sound quality of the song. Lower bitrates on a lossless file simply tell you that there were more repeating 0's or 1's (long stretches of silence, etc.) in the file making it easier to compress.

If it were being converted to a lossy codec (i.e. MP3) you're actually getting rid of 0's and 1's that aren't easily heard (super high and low frequency stuff usally) in order to reduce the file size as well as using the tricks I mentioned above. Once you get rid of the 0's and 1's there's no going back though.

Hope I didn't confuse you too much but I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

[DoFoT9]

Another way to think about it...

Say you have an uncompressed .wav file. Since it's digital it's made up completely of 0's and 1's. So, say an uncompressed file looks like this:

000110101111111100000

You notice how you get some repeating numbers there? For instance, there are 8 1's in a row. Wouldn't a more efficient use of space be to say '1, repeat 8 times' rather than writing out 1 eight times? This is sort of how compression works. You find patterns and shrink it down to use less space. All the information is there but it just takes up less space on your hard drive.

What an lossless codec does is find ways to shrink down the file size using something like I described above by finding repeating patterns in the file to reduce the file size. All the information is there to bring it back to it's original, full size and both files still contain the same information. The bit rate is calculated by dividing the length of the song by the total size of the file. This is pretty meaningless when you're talking about lossless because all it's telling you is how efficiently the file was compressed and has nothing to do with the actual sound quality of the song. Lower bitrates on a lossless file simply tell you that there were more repeating 0's or 1's (long stretches of silence, etc.) in the file making it easier to compress.

If it were being converted to a lossy codec (i.e. MP3) you're actually getting rid of 0's and 1's that aren't easily heard (super high and low frequency stuff usally) in order to reduce the file size as well as using the tricks I mentioned above. Once you get rid of the 0's and 1's there's no going back though.

Hope I didn't confuse you too much but I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

lol thanks for the explanation - i already knew most of what you said, but the part on the bitrate in lossless files was very interesting thanks for that. (Y) :)

this kind of stuff is very easy for me to understand, would you mind going into deeper detail? or do you have any links lol??