iPod lossless vs CD audio quality

Yes EAC makes bit perfect copies which means you have every bit of data as oppoosed to just whatever ur laser picks up. I didn't completely believe it until I tore the shrink wrap off new cd's that EAC had trouble capturing. Which is proof that ur cdp is only getting part of the data.
 
It seems like this topic was discussed earlier, BUT, I can't find it.

I was looking at the iPod Nano player. It featured a "lossless" method of downloading music. I was also planning on plugging this little unit into my C2200 pre amp....wondered if it would sound is as good as (or close) to a CD:scratch2:

Appreciate and hints as to the title of the thread that covers this issue:D

Thanks,
Robert

Hi. I'm having the same question. What happened in the end with this thread? What was the conclusion?
 
Hi. I'm having the same question. What happened in the end with this thread? What was the conclusion?
There's lots of techno-babble going on here, but the bottom line is that the the decision alone is yours. But FWIW here's what I found out about iPods recently:

1) I rip using AAC @320 bps as it provides a nice trade off in size vs.quality. I've received files from friends online and burned them to disc at this resolution and played the discs at gatherings without any negative comments. It's not the sine qua non of sound, but it works fine for casual listening and probably would fool a few folks if you didn't tell them.

2) You can manage your library to exceed your Ipod capacity by syncing your iPod to a playlist, rather than the library. What this means is that you can rip everything to .wav files, but only transfer into your iPod a bit of it. More simply put, you can have a 500GB library, but only select 4, 8, 30 or whatever GB you iPod capacity is to store. It obviously is a bit more work as you have to mange your files, but if you want the best possible sound it's the way to go.

3) I listened to the Wadia iDock at AKFest this year and it's a pretty sweet device. It is one of a handful of devices that actually will bypass the Ipod DAC and allow access to the raw files for output to the DAC in your system. I played some .wav files on it and it sounded very nice, but I'm not as critical as many here ( I listen to a universal DVD player as my CD source w/o an added buffer or DAC). If you are interested in the highest quality sound from your iPod; i recommend you check it out.

So what's the bottom line? Well if you want the best sound possible, I'd say rip to .wav, set your library on a USB external HD, and check out the Wadia. Me. I'm pretty content to listen to mine out in the garage via a dock connector, not earphone, to my receiver at the AAC mode. YMMV
 
3) I listened to the Wadia iDock at AKFest this year and it's a pretty sweet device. It is one of a handful of devices that actually will bypass the Ipod DAC and allow access to the raw files for output to the DAC in your system. I played some .wav files on it and it sounded very nice, but I'm not as critical as many here ( I listen to a universal DVD player as my CD source w/o an added buffer or DAC). If you are interested in the highest quality sound from your iPod; i recommend you check it out.

I am on the waiting list for this product -- Has anyone gotten it yet? I suppose a new thread is in order for that.
 
...if you want the best sound possible, I'd say rip to .wav, set your library on a USB external HD, and check out the Wadia...

Nothing wrong with wav files per se, but FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) or ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) files are identical except for being roughly 1/3 smaller file sizes, which really adds up when you are storing a large music collection. There is absolutely no difference in sound quality between wav, ALAC and FLAC.

I went with FLAC because I don't like proprietary file types like ALAC. FLAC is becoming the de facto standard with more and more companies and content providers adopting it. There are increasing numbers of personal music players that play FLACs. But if you are committed to an iPod, go with ALAC files instead of MP3. I am pretty sure that sound quality will be limited by the quality of the DAC in your iPod though.

Serving these lossless files off of a big external hard drive through 1) an audiophile-grade soundcard, or 2) an external DAC, is the wave of the future for high quality playback. Sound quality can easily surpass that of a CD player because there are no jitter issues. The thing that ultimately makes the most difference is the quality of the DAC whether it is in the CD player, soundcard or an external unit.
 
I always thought AIFF was cd-quality lossless. That's what we use at work for sound files (commercial production and recording music for commercials). You can buy HUGE (strorage wise, not phsyical size) external hard-drives for your computer now, and link your iTunes (or whatever) to that. That way you won't clog all of your computer memory with 100 meg lossless files. It synchs up seemlessly and makes for a great home-jukebox w/o much of a loss in quality...only limited by how you get it off of your computer.
 
There's lots of techno-babble going on here, but the bottom line is that the the decision alone is yours. But FWIW here's what I found out about iPods recently:

1) I rip using AAC @320 bps as it provides a nice trade off in size vs.quality. I've received files from friends online and burned them to disc at this resolution and played the discs at gatherings without any negative comments. It's not the sine qua non of sound, but it works fine for casual listening and probably would fool a few folks if you didn't tell them.

Hi. I'd say rip to Apple Lossless if you have a high capacity ipod, or 256kbps aac when you're starting to run out of space. But if you really have that much music that doesn't fit into just one 80gb or 160gb ipod, get more than one, and perhaps use them for different genres! An ipod costs £150, 80gb of music cost around £800, so I think spending 10% of the cost of the music you have on gear is not that bad! But then if you can't tell 128kbps mp3 from lossless, why not just use the smaller file? I guess this is a personal decision.
 
3) I listened to the Wadia iDock at AKFest this year and it's a pretty sweet device. It is one of a handful of devices that actually will bypass the Ipod DAC and allow access to the raw files for output to the DAC in your system. I played some .wav files on it and it sounded very nice, but I'm not as critical as many here ( I listen to a universal DVD player as my CD source w/o an added buffer or DAC). If you are interested in the highest quality sound from your iPod; i recommend you check it out.

This is quite an interesting comment. You said you played .wav through one of those (which, btw for me it's the same as apple lossless, but that's not the point I'm trying to make). Do you have an ipod? How do you think it compared with your ipod when you use it as source through a simple dock? Maybe it sounded good because of the other components, but not the source.
 
With good gear such as Mc and a revealing DAC you will be able to hear the difference between compressed ALAC and uncompressed WAV, as silly as it might sound. It is subtle, but it is there. And with storage as cheap as it is......
 
With good gear such as Mc and a revealing DAC you will be able to hear the difference between compressed ALAC and uncompressed WAV, as silly as it might sound. It is subtle, but it is there. And with storage as cheap as it is......
There should be absolutely no difference! It's lossless, meaning there is no loss during the encoding and decoding process. If you're hearing a difference you've either got a bad codec, you're hearing a difference in your components or you're imagining things. I don't know how many times I have to type this, lossless audio formats work just like .zip files, only for audio. When you encode and decode lossless files they are perfect bit-accurate copies of the original files.
 
With good gear such as Mc and a revealing DAC you will be able to hear the difference between compressed ALAC and uncompressed WAV, as silly as it might sound. It is subtle, but it is there. And with storage as cheap as it is......
The output of FLAC and wav has been proven to be exactly the same. If you are hearing a difference, there is something wrong with your player/computer. FYI, even McIntosh plays FLAC in their MS300/MS750 server.

To quote Mc:
"The FLAC encoding and decoding used by the MS750 eliminates the inherent loss of data common in MP3 compression. FLAC encoding yields CD-quality archival storage."
 
I understand the debate, but guys - isn't it about the music?

Who really enjoys switching CD's while you are working on a term paper? What about getting home from a long day and flipping your system on, only to have to change the CD after only an hour of listening?

I know I am not lazy, but I will take the everlasting song after song - and different, like a radio station - over CDs.

I compared CD's with my Ipod and while there is a difference, there is not enough to justify having 100's of CDs laying around and having to keeping changing the disc in the CD player.

Anyone else with me on this one?

I totally agree that sound quality is somewhat diminished - but, who are we impressing - the neighbor, or ourselves?

:music:

-Storm.
 
This is quite an interesting comment. You said you played .wav through one of those (which, btw for me it's the same as apple lossless, but that's not the point I'm trying to make). Do you have an ipod? How do you think it compared with your ipod when you use it as source through a simple dock? Maybe it sounded good because of the other components, but not the source.
As was mentioned, the wadia takes the bit for bit signal in digital format and sends it to a DAC. If you are using lossless files on your iPod, and nothing in the chain is broken, this leaves the sound quality to the DAC and the components that follow it. Assuming you have a great DAC, the sound quality should be better.
 
I understand the debate, but guys - isn't it about the music?

Who really enjoys switching CD's while you are working on a term paper? What about getting home from a long day and flipping your system on, only to have to change the CD after only an hour of listening?

I know I am not lazy, but I will take the everlasting song after song - and different, like a radio station - over CDs.

I compared CD's with my Ipod and while there is a difference, there is not enough to justify having 100's of CDs laying around and having to keeping changing the disc in the CD player.

Anyone else with me on this one?

I totally agree that sound quality is somewhat diminished - but, who are we impressing - the neighbor, or ourselves?

:music:

-Storm.


That's just it, though. Because it's about the music, I want all of the music there. FLAC is just as convenient as MP3s. And because it's ALL about the music, I want the packaging materials, the producer's notes, the lyrics, the artwork. So I buy a CD, put on the computer and I have the best of both worlds :)
 
Granted, I seem to fall into the analysis paralysis trap quite often. However, before someone goes and rips hundreds of CDs, it would be painful to realize later that a simple program or process step could have resulted in better audio.

There are many discussions out there that will tell you that ripping CDs using EAC is better than Max, which is better than iTunes etc. using the same output file!

There are discussions where it is mentioned that listening to a ripped CD using foobar sounds better than iTunes, or for Mac users, Cog beats iTunes, assuming all setting are the same.

If it is all bit for bit the same, why all the different results?

There are discussions that say solid state sounds the same as tube amps.

The list goes on.

Is it all placebo effect? Is it due to all ears and hearing being different from person to person?

Perhaps it is the activity itself of unpacking or unzippping the lossless compressed file which causes an audible difference within a MacMini. Perhaps anything over 20Khz is taken out during the compression process as silence. Perhaps I have lost my mind.:music:

The quest continues.

By the way, has anyone here had any experience with Max (ripping) and Cog (playback) for the Mac?

Cheers.
 
If it is all bit for bit the same, why all the different results? .
Perhaps it is the activity itself of unpacking or unzippping the lossless compressed file which causes an audible difference within a MacMini.
With a program like EAC, you get error correction that will make the wav file sound more similar to the original source that was saved to the CD. Here is a link that tells you why it works better than many other programs when it comes to ripping the original CD:

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/overview/features/features-of-eac/

Assuming you have used EAC to rip the CD, you now have a wav file on your computer. Using the FLAC.exe to make it smaller and convert to FLAC format will give you the exact same results as playing the original WAV file when it is unzipped. It has been proven that there are no mathmatical differences between the two and there is actually a program available that can show you this.



The next step is playing the file. Not all players send out a bit perfect signal of what is in the wav file or the FLAC file. As an example, there is a version of iTunes that does not send out a bit perfect signal if you do not have the volume all the way up. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether you save the file as wav or Apple lossless....both will have the problem. The same goes for Windows XP and its problem with wanting to send out a 48khz signal. Some people use programs like Foobar to get around this problem using ASIO4ALL or other methods. Once again, this will be a problem no matter what CODEC you use.

WAV=FLAC or any other lossless format. How you rip the CD and what you use to play the source file are different issues. In other words, if your computer has a virus that corrupts its ability to play wav, you may find that an mp3 file sounds better. That does not mean it is a better format, it just means your computer is messed up.

Is it all placebo effect? Is it due to all ears and hearing being different from person to person?
I think a lot of it is placebo. You can find out for sure by doing a double blind test.
 
Lots of miss information here. Check out the Mc server product. I believe Mc uses flac – a lossless compression format to store the music on their hard drive. Reports I’ve read, say the stream from their server (playing lossless compressed files) going into the MDA1000 are as good as a CD played from the MDC transport!

Also DVD-A and SACD’s use a lossless compression scheme to store the data on these discs. DVD-A is MPL (Meridian lossless packing)
I hardly d/l any mp3's unless I can't find them in Flac format.
Flac files sounds just like the original cd's to me.
I've ripped a few of my own cds to flac format.
 
Assuming you have used EAC to rip the CD, you now have a wav file on your computer. Using the FLAC.exe to make it smaller and convert to FLAC format will give you the exact same results as playing the original WAV file when it is unzipped. It has been proven that there are no mathmatical differences between the two and there is actually a program available that can show you this..

Why rip to wav and convert to flac, why not just use EAC straight to flac
 
For those interested, I did a test comparing the results of ripping one song using 3 different programs on PC and Mac with surprising (to me, others might say, doh!) results. This might explain the reason for the difference in what I am hearing when listening to ALAC versus WAV encoded using iTunes on the Mac.

Conclusion:

I will no longer use iTunes to rip anything for high end listening, but will use EAC instead.

Even iTunes rips from Mac and PC can differ for the same file format! iTunes ALAC and WAV files differ on my Mac but not on my PC. Probably optical drive related issues come into play now as well.

For those interested in the details please see below:

Testing Results of ripping using:

• iTunes on MacMini,
• iTunes on PC,
• Max on MacMini
• EAC on PC

Test media – 1 Song from an unscratched purchased CD

Aqualung – 01. Strange & Beautiful (I'll Put A Spell On You)

Comparison Test Software

Foobar bit comparison to find differences in rip.

Test Results:

Test 1: EAC WAV file versus iTunes on PC AIFF file on auto settings

• differences found: 20327754 sample(s), starting at 1.0012698 second(s), peak: 1.9772644 at 129.1615193 second(s), 1ch

Test 2: EAC WAV file versus iTunes on PC WAV file on auto settings

• differences found: 20327754 sample(s), starting at 1.0012698 second(s), peak: 1.9772644 at 129.1615193 second(s), 1ch

Test 3: EAC WAV file versus iTunes on PC WAV file on custom settings 48Khz, 16bit, stereo

• Comparing failed (sample rate mismatch).

Test 4: EAC WAV file versus iTunes on PC AIFF file on custom settings 48Khz, 16bit, stereo

• Comparing failed (sample rate mismatch).

Test 5: EAC wav file versus iTunes on Mac WAV file on auto settings

• differences found: 20324423 sample(s), starting at 1.0012698 second(s), peak: 1.9230347 at 119.3403855 second(s), 1ch

Test 6: EAC wav file versus Max on Mac AIFF file on 32bit Core Audio setting

• differences found: 20324423 sample(s), starting at 1.0012698 second(s), peak: 1.9230347 at 119.3403855 second(s), 1ch

Test 7: iTunes on PC WAV file 48Khz versus iTunes on PC AIFF 48Khz file

• No differences in decoded data found.

Test 8: iTunes on PC WAV file auto settings versus iTunes on PC AIFF auto settings

• No differences in decoded data found.

Test 9: iTunes on PC WAV file auto settings versus iTunes on Mac WAV auto settings

• differences found: 20322886 sample(s), starting at 1.0023583 second(s), peak: 1.9734802 at 58.8010204 second(s), 1ch

Test 10: iTunes on PC ALAC file auto settings versus iTunes on Mac ALAC auto settings

• differences found: 20323701 sample(s), starting at 1.0023583 second(s), peak: 1.9734802 at 58.8010204 second(s), 1ch

Test 11: EAC on PC WAV versus iTunes on PC ALAC auto settings

• differences found: 20327754 sample(s), starting at 1.0012698 second(s), peak: 1.9772644 at 129.1615193 second(s), 1ch

Test 12: EAC on PC WAV file versus iTunes on Mac ALAC auto settings

• differences found: 20324874 sample(s), starting at 1.0012698 second(s), peak: 1.9230347 at 119.3403855 second(s), 1ch

Test 13: iTunes on PC WAV file auto settings versus iTunes on PC ALAC auto settings

• No differences in decoded data found.

Test 14: iTunes on PC AIFF file auto settings versus iTunes on PC ALAC auto settings

• No differences in decoded data found.

Test 15: iTunes on Mac AIFF file auto settings versus iTunes on Mac WAV auto settings

• differences found: 104100 sample(s), starting at 3.3365986 second(s), peak: 0.1472473 at 4.2235374 second(s), 1ch

Test 16: iTunes on Mac AIFF file auto settings versus iTunes on Mac ALAC auto settings

• differences found: 44225 sample(s), starting at 3.3365986 second(s), peak: 0.7921753 at 4.5601134 second(s), 1ch

Test 17: iTunes on Mac WAV file auto settings versus iTunes on Mac ALAC auto settings

differences found: 90334 sample(s), starting at 3.5097959 second(s), peak: 0.7921753 at 4.5601134 second(s), 1ch

Test 18: Max on Mac AIFF file 32bit using Core Audio versus Max on Mac AIFF file 16bit using Core Audio

• No differences in decoded data found.

Test 19: Max on Mac AIFF file 32bit using Core Audio versus Max on Mac AIFF file 24bit using Core Audio

• No differences in decoded data found.

Test 20: Max on Mac AIFF file 16bit using Core Audio versus Max on Mac AIFF file 24bit using Core Audio

• No differences in decoded data found.

Test 21: EAC wav file versus Max on Mac AIFF file on 16bit Core Audio setting

• differences found: 20324423 sample(s), starting at 1.0012698 second(s), peak: 1.9230347 at 119.3403855 second(s), 1ch

Test 22: EAC wav file versus Max on Mac AIFF file on 24bit Core Audio setting

• differences found: 20324423 sample(s), starting at 1.0012698 second(s), peak: 1.9230347 at 119.3403855 second(s), 1ch
 
Back
Top Bottom