Audiophile's Audio Format Showdown

[ChrisA]

I'm currently ripping all my CDs into ALAC, and have a question after reading this thread.

if I convert an ALAC track to AIFF directly (say using the right click option in iTunes) is the new AIFF track exactly the same as if I ripped the track directly from the CD to AIFF?

also is the same true if I were to convert from ALAC to FLAC/WAV ect?

Yes. It's like if you added "5" to every sample you got off the CD and then later subtracted 5 you have EXACTLY the same file you started with. ALL lossless formats are just like this.

That guy above who says he can hear the difference, I wonder because no one listens to FLAC or ALAC. It would sound like white noise or static, always the software converts it back to un-compressed as it plays. So it is totally impossible to hear a difference because you never hear the compressed sound.

Proof? Convert a CD track round trip. Compress and uncompress it. Open both in a binary file editor or a hexadecimal dump program and look at the bits.

Don't mind if some guy in a forum says he can hear the difference. You can also find people who say that they can hear if a fuse is swapped end for end.

Next I guess we can ask of our CD rips sound better if stored in Western Digital disk drives or if Seagate sounds better.

 

[KeithPratt]

no one listens to FLAC or ALAC. It would sound like white noise or static, always the software converts it back to un-compressed as it plays.

Exactamundo!

Next I guess we can ask of our CD rips sound better if stored in Western Digital disk drives or if Seagate sounds better.

If you love that warm analogue sound it has to be Hitachi.

 

[tkermit]

AIFF sounds better than FLAC and FLAC sounds better than ALAC.

Really? You can ABX AIFF from FLAC or ALAC?

 

[KoaGittySlinger]

Subtle, dynamic, breathy SOUND!

I do not exaggerate one when I say those things. ALAC is known to be duller than AIFF, although the file may contain the exact same data bit for bit.
And have you even tried V0? It's much more practical than 320Kbps AAC.

As a fellow six string slinger Prodo I think could appreciate this fact along with me; guitar players, especially electric guitar players, develop a peculiar, intuitive, sense for the way unrecorded, live sonics resonate naturally in the ear. It's more just to feel the music and anticipate what needs to be played where in so far as to lock in with other musicians also playing along. There are some weird, not necessarily scientifically definable oddities in sonic behavior that factor into the calculus of overall impact of sound on the brain..perhaps this is why PCM type formats somehow sound dissimilar from their compressed counterparts to our ears. Just my humble 2 pennies fwiw. Or.. maybe we're just weird. Lawl

 

[Jolly Jimmy]

Saying ALAC sounds duller than AIFF makes no sense. We are in the digital realm here. If there were errors in the decoding process of a losslessly compressed file, there wouldn't be just a subtle effect on the tonal quality making it "duller". There would be much more noticiable effects like pops, skips and cut outs.

 

[androiphone]

thanks for your answers, I will carry on ripping to ALAC knowing that it contains the exact same data as the original CD and knowing that I can easily convert it all into another format if/when the time comes that a different format suits my needs better.

I did a quick test last night ripping a CD into ALAC, AIFF and mp3 320kbs and gave each a quick listen and if I am honest I couldn't hear a difference between any of them, though I must stress this was just one CD and I only listened to a few tracks, and I'm no way disappointed by the sound, and I am mainly ripping to lossless because of futureability - I only want to rip the CDs once.

 

[Nova77]

AIFF all the way. It is uncompressed, so there is no loss of sound quality. I tried apple lossless and I found it a little different compared to original CDs (it may be psychological, who knows... lol). Plus, I think my 2nd gen Ipod shuffle doesn't handle apple lossless, but AIFF works.

 

[tkermit]

it may be psychological, who knows...

Which you could easily find out by doing an ABX test –no need for speculation. On the other hand, a listening test where you already know whether what's currently playing is the uncompressed or the compressed version of the song will not be able to help you in deciding whether there exists an audible difference between the versions – unless the differences are huge and readily apparent in the first place, which won't be the case here with ALAC and AIFF where there should be absolutely no difference.

 

[Meicyn]

it may be psychological, who knows... lol

It is psychological. When you compress a folder/file into a zip file and email it to someone, is there a loss of quality? Does the person receiving the file somehow get something completely different when they unzip it? Of course not.

Compression does not equate to a loss of quality. There are lossy audio codecs, and there are lossless audio codecs. ALAC is a lossless audio codec and the only way it can sound inferior to your CD is if the CD was improperly ripped.

 

[DustinT]

Next I guess we can ask of our CD rips sound better if stored in Western Digital disk drives or if Seagate sounds better.

Man, the bits get all pissed when you store them on platters. My bits live only on 6 GB\s SSD's and they are happy, dangit! I can hear the difference between happy bits and pissed off bits. And you, my friend, have probably pissed off every bit you've ever met! Dilettante!

 

[philipt42]

FLAC, if only because it's universal, and open source. I end up coverting it to 320k anyway; DBT have basically proven that there is no difference perceivable by humans between the two.

 

[Minimum91]

FLAC to ALAC

I download as much 24/96 in FLAC as possible then covert it to ALAC using XLD.

 

[androiphone]

I was importing some CD's into iTunes using ALAC today, on the back of the CD it said that it was: 24 bit/96 kHz,
but if I look at the ALAC file it says, sample size 16bit/44.1kHz,
does that mean I have lost data from the CD when ripping to lossless?

 

[Prodo123]

I was importing some CD's into iTunes using ALAC today, on the back of the CD it said that it was: 24 bit/96 kHz,
but if I look at the ALAC file it says, sample size 16bit/44.1kHz,
does that mean I have lost data from the CD when ripping to lossless?

Yes, you have lost data. However, the data lost is negligible. The difference between a 320Kbps file and a 1411Kbps file is noticeable because 320Kbps is a low bitrate to start with. The difference between 1411Kbps and 4608Kbps is unnoticeable, because 1411Kbps is already beyond the limit of what the human ear can perceive.

 

[androiphone]

thank you,
so if I was being difficult and wanted an exact copy would my only option is to use FLAC? as looking in itunes both AIFF and WAV (in iTunes at least) don't seem to go up to 24bit/96kHz.

also if a CD is in 24bit/96kHz are they generally labelled as such like this one was? though I am 99% certain that all the CDs before this one will not have been the type to have music in that high quality.

I'm going to carry using ALAC for archival and listening to it at home purposes and not too worried about the minor loss but I'm pretty new to lossless audio so still have lots to learn.

 

[tkermit]

if a CD is in 24bit/96kHz are they generally labelled as such like this one was?

I don't think it is even possible for a CD to be in 24bit/96khz. Maybe it's some kind of hybrid format or it isn't talking about the actual encoding but the source material or something? The Redbook standard specifies 2-channel 16bit at 44.1khz for a CD.

 

[Prodo123]

thank you,
so if I was being difficult and wanted an exact copy would my only option is to use FLAC? as looking in itunes both AIFF and WAV (in iTunes at least) don't seem to go up to 24bit/96kHz.

also if a CD is in 24bit/96kHz are they generally labelled as such like this one was? though I am 99% certain that all the CDs before this one will not have been the type to have music in that high quality.

I'm going to carry using ALAC for archival and listening to it at home purposes and not too worried about the minor loss but I'm pretty new to lossless audio so still have lots to learn.

Most CDs are mastered in 16-bit 44.1kHz. CDs labeled as 24-bit 96kHz are high-quality audio CDs, and should be separate from normal 16-bit CDs. It's most likely remastered.

Try NOT to rip with iTunes. Use X Lossless Decoder. There, you can rip AIFF audio of up to 32-bit. Overkill? Yes. Futureproof? Also yes. However, you cannot specify the bit depth when using ALAC, so you must first rip it to FLAC/AIFF or a format which supports 24-bit audio, then convert the file to ALAC.
At least that's what I think it means.

 

[tkermit]

Most CDs are mastered in 16-bit 44.1kHz. CDs labeled as 24-bit 96kHz are high-quality audio CDs, and should be separate from normal 16-bit CDs. It's most likely remastered.

They're probably advertising the fact that the recording was made in 24bit/96khz. But the fact remains that the CD encoding is fixed at 16bit/44.1khz. That's not to say that there aren't hybrid formats like SACD, but a regular CD drive wouldn't be able to rip the SACD content.

This is a regular 44.1khz/16bit audio cd for example:

 

[ChrisA]

I was importing some CD's into iTunes using ALAC today, on the back of the CD it said that it was: 24 bit/96 kHz,
but if I look at the ALAC file it says, sample size 16bit/44.1kHz,
does that mean I have lost data from the CD when ripping to lossless?

If that CD was recorded as you say than it was not a CD and would not play in a standard CD player. There are some kinds of multi layer discs that have CD- quality music (16-bit, 44.1KHz) on one layer and something higher on another layer but these need special players.

I do have some 24-bit/96K recording in my iTunes library. These are vinyl rips. Only in one case is the quality better. It has to be a very good recording and then you'd need good equipment to play it back. I don't think iPods can play it.

 

[androiphone]

It's definitely just an ordinary CD so it just must be talking about the original studio recording being in 24bit/96kHz, glad I now know that CDs can only be 16bit/44.1kHz I was mildly worrying that I had inadvertently lost (albeit somewhat negligible) sound data which I wouldn't want to do for archival reasons.

thanks for the clarification guys

 

[Uofmtiger]

FLAC, if only because it's universal, and open source

It is open source, but I would not consider it universal since there are many players that can't play it.

 

[Prodo123]

It is open source, but I would not consider it universal since there are many players that can't play it.

In fact, I wouldn't use a format over the other just because it is open source. I'd rather use MP4 than MKV, for example.

 

[ChrisA]

I'd like to see some more thorough recommendations between ALAC and FLAC. I am seeing that ALAC has support in all Apple devices, and FLAC has community support, never vice versa. Is there a good choice here?

There is zero point in comparing the audio quality between to lossless formats. They are exactly equal. Not just "to close to notice a difference" but EXACTLY equal.

So all that remains are practical differences and you petty much covered that. ALAC works in iTunes and on iPads and FLAC does not. So if you use an iPod, end of discussion ALAC is the only option for lossless compression. Stop reading now.

Still with us? OK so you are using non-Apple products and need lossless compression then FLAC is a good option.

But. It hardly maters a one can convert from one format to the other and back with no loss of quality. Disks are so big and cheap it costs nothing to keep tracks in multiple formats.

 

[coops]

There is zero point in comparing the audio quality between to lossless formats. They are exactly equal. Not just "to close to notice a difference" but EXACTLY equal.

the issue is in how the different formats are processed and used/decoded for the listener - which does allow for plenty of difference between formats, even if they all contain exactly the same data.

Take a CD and play from 2 different CD players and despite the same exact digital information, you'll hear a difference - back in the old days, i was quite startled how much i preferred the Arcam Alpha over the Mission Cyrus...

I like FLAC - tags etc, and plays great through a Sonos system wirelessly...


coops

 

[TMRaven]

the issue is in how the different formats are processed and used/decoded for the listener - which does allow for plenty of difference between formats, even if they all contain exactly the same data.

Take a CD and play from 2 different CD players and despite the same exact digital information, you'll hear a difference - back in the old days, i was quite startled how much i preferred the Arcam Alpha over the Mission Cyrus...

I like FLAC - tags etc, and plays great through a Sonos system wirelessly...


coops

That's probably moreso because both cd players have different dacs. This discussion is concerning over playback on the same source.