I can't believe that, nearly four years after its introduction (and well after its reverse-engineering by audio codec hackers), people still think that Apple Lossless is not, in fact, lossless.![]()
and just to make sure did you rip the song from the original cd as wav?? or was is just some mp3 of it u had ???just wondering
...Pictures show the visual difference between the original WAV and the compressed file - what you see is what you don't hear in your AAC/MP3. The sample is what gets lost during encoding.
so in other words apple loseless is compressed file or lower in size but still contains the same frequencies as the wav uncompressed version???
and just to make sure did you rip the song from the original cd as wav?? or was is just some mp3 of it u had ???just wondering
Thanks for this!!!
What are the relative file sizes of all the formats compared?
The idea of lossless is to "toss out" parts of the sound that will not be missed as much.
.JPG works the same way.
I don't think so, since you can completely reconstruct the original file. "Toss out" might be a misleading term here.
I took one of the files and phase inverted it.
... nothing. Pure silence. Not a single peak anywhere, just a perfectly flat line and absolutely no sound. Both files had perfectly cancelled out each other.
Absolutely. The I believe a more correct way of looking at it would be "substitute with a more efficient representation of the data."
"Toss out" is strictly lossy.
I'm not trying to troll or disrespect c-Row. Obviously much thought and time was offered here for free. Thank you for all that you've done here.
But I was wondering if the WAV vs. Inverted ALAC result (the "silent" file) was "normalized" to full volume afterwards before mentioning the result. I can see that you know your stuff, so you probably did. Silence at a low level may not be silence at all. And high frequencies are always at a much lower level than the lower frequencies. And sometimes low level dithering can fudge results. I guess I should go do the work myself.
Cheers to all.![]()
I wonder whether the advice above REALLY makes sense in the light of this thread's conclusions...
I personally encode all my music in the MP3 format.
If one uses VBR in encoding their CD audio to MP3, you will be VERY hard pressed to tell the difference.
People complain about MP3, but it is still the only music format that pretty much ALL music devices will read.
...If one uses VBR in encoding their CD audio to MP3, you will be VERY hard pressed to tell the difference.
People complain about MP3, but it is still the only music format that pretty much ALL music devices will read.
If ultimate compatibility is your goal, then yes, MP3 is the most effective format...
....but if you can tell the difference then it WILL be different (inferior). So why settle for less?
I'll argue the other side of the coin. Once converted to MP3 you are "stuck". With ALAC (open source since this thread was started) you can easily convert (using many free programs) to LPCM, FLAC, MP3 or ACC. So I say ALAC (or other lossless) is the ultimate compatibility.
If one uses VBR in encoding their CD audio to MP3, you will be VERY hard pressed to tell the difference.