iTunes 24 bit AIFF Album Art

vortecjr wrote:<br />

<br />

<cite>Can we agree on flac for everyday and wav for those seeking something better?</cite><br />

<br />

Uh, no. FLAC and WAV are both lossless, one and the same. One is just compressed. I use AIFF me-self! <br />

<br />

--<br />

djp

vortecjr, I'm trying to understand on which basis you believe there are differences between compressed lossless (FLAC, ALAC) and non-compressed (WAV).<br />

<br />

Do you believe:<br />

<br />

1. The difference lies in the files themselves. Lossless files are not bit perfect equivalents of the original.<br />

2. The files are fine, but the playback software is prone to introduce audible errors.<br />

<br />

"Can we agree on flac for everyday and wav for those seeking something better?"<br />

<br />

People can do what they like, of course. But I'm waiting for good evidence that WAV is better than FLAC or ALAC.

Hi Guys - The whole lossless v uncompressed discussion can be found here http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/AIFF-or-Apple-Lossless

djp, ok ok I forgot about aiff and aiff is great as well as you know.<br />

<br />

Why is Reference Recordings (backed by Keith O. Johnson ) releasing in 24/176.4 in wav.<br />

<br />

Why is the Jazz Prologue III (by Kent Poon ) releasing in 24/192 in aiff?<br />

<br />

It just sounds better uncompressed! <br />

<br />

Remember this is a computer audio forum not a computer forum. The wav and aiff sound better. <br />

<br />

regards<br />

<br />

vortecjr <br />

watchnerd, tell you what...on Monday I will call the guys at Berkeley Audio. I believe they can shead some light on this topic. They have some pretty smart people who can put this to rest. They are the guys who use to produce pro goods for recording studios and are now on the consumer hi end side. I will also e-mail Keth O. Johnson and see if he will chime in. I will report back to the forum. I will ask them during playback what sounds better....an original 24/96 or the same file converted to wav in computer prior to playback. The computer would be set up properly to actually play these files and the original is a high quality piece and not some converted mp3. <br />

<br />

One side thought. For many years we have had uncompressed pcm with digital rights management in 16/44.1. The audio industy took a full step back with mp3 downloads and people were and are thrilled with that format. As long as the picture comes out on the media player most could care less about the quality. What a shame! The flac is great for downloads, but a step forward and backwards for playback. 24/88.2 or higher in uncompressed pcm without drm in wav or aiff is the full step forward. <br />

<br />

regards<br />

<br />

vortecjr

"I will ask them during playback what sounds better....an original 24/96 or the same file converted to wav in computer prior to playback"<br />

<br />

That's fine, but that wasn't what I was debating.<br />

<br />

I was debating that the quality between WAV, AIFF, ALAC, and FLAC should be any different.<br />

<br />

And if they do say one sounds better, I'd be curious to know:<br />

<br />

a) how do they know they're not hearing a placebo effect?<br />

b) what their explanation is for the difference, given that the musical content is bit identical between them?<br />

<br />

watchnerd, placebo is when I have two pills, one makes you fart and the other does not, I give the one that does not and I tell you it does, I ask you to take the pill and ask you to tell me later how may times it make you fart. This is just about what sounds better in a heads up. Lets see what they say and if they say why. I sent three e-mails out and will copy the results here as I get them back.<br />

<br />

Regards<br />

<br />

vortecjr

This might make you smile.<br />

<br />

Kent replied:<br />

"Hello JR, Nice to hear from you. the 24/96 Flac is a lossless format. If the player supports this format properly, they are bit identical with WAV or AIFF. Bests,Kent"<br />

<br />

This might make you smile or not.<br />

<br />

From HDtracks website:<br />

"AIFF files are at the top of the list of high quality file formats, although, since uncompressed, result in larger file sizes."<br />

and<br />

"The FLAC file format has proved in many ways to be one of the best formats in terms of benefits in comparison to competing audio data formats. It is a compressed file; however, since FLAC files are lossless, there is no quality loss. Therefore it is fast, high quality, and does not occupy much space on a hard disk. In addition, the FLAC format is not restricted by patents or DRM, as well as being open format. This allows for format conversions without any loss during the process. <br />

The FLAC format also has a good error resistance. Usually, when streaming errors occur with other formats the stream is destroyed from the point of error to the end of the file. However, FLAC files limit the amount of damage done, and therefore errors only cause about a seconds worth of data loss. The FLAC format is supported by various consumer electronic audio players on the market."<br />

<br />

The reads can deside for them selves. More when the rest reply.<br />

<br />

Regards<br />

<br />

Vortecjr

Sounds to me like both Kent and HDTracks are saying that the quality of compressed lossless is nothing to worry about.

lets see what the rest say and lets not ignor the big "if" Kent put in or worry about loosing a second of sound per HDTracks....more to follow.<br />

<br />

regards<br />

<br />

vortecjr

In full less my real name;<br />

<br />

"Dear XXXX,<br />

<br />

Thank you for your email and comments about the Alpha DAC.<br />

<br />

In answer to your question; for the best audio quality FLAC files should be converted to WAV (LPCM) files before playback. <br />

<br />

The reason is to reduce processing overhead during playback. FLAC files must be unpacked in real time to LPCM during playback. <br />

<br />

Ideally, a music server should have very little processing activity during playback and pass LPCM files from storage to a re-clocked low jitter (<20ps) digital output with as direct and simple a data path as possible. <br />

<br />

I hope this was helpful.<br />

<br />

Best regards,<br />

<br />

Michael Ritter<br />

<br />

Berkeley Audio Design, LLC<br />

<br />

www.berkeleyaudiodesign.com"<br />

<br />

Regards<br />

<br />

vortecjr<br />

<br />

PS So a big "if" from Kent, loosing a few seconds from HDTracks and now this. Honestly, I dont think Keith Johnson will relay...so I will ask my contact at Reference Recording and lets see. Seriously, its about the best audio quality and not who is right or wrong and I really think wav and aiff is the way to go.<br />

<br />

<br />

In full less my real name....<br />

"Hi XXXX,<br />

Our engineering folks say that files should be de-FLAC'd (converted back to WAV) before playing them for best results. You might ask www.computeraudiophile.com the same question and see what the moderator there says.<br />

<br />

Best wishes,<br />

Marcia"<br />

<br />

Regards<br />

<br />

vortecjr<br />

<br />

Hi vortecjr - Wow, Reference Recordings sure must know what its talking about -> <i>"You might ask www.computeraudiophile.com the same question"</i><br />

<br />

Only kidding of course. They do know what they are talking about but when I come in to play all bets are off :~)

in fact I vote to change your name to:<br />

"supreme computer audio commander"<br />

<br />

can someone second the motion...<br />

<br />

vortecjr