Do Apple Lossless files really sound the same as AIFF?

[Jud]

Three questions, but only for those here who prefer AIFF files to ALAC.

 

1. If I took my music files, ripped as ALAC files, and converted them to AIFF, would they be the same AIFF files you prefer?
   
2. And if they would be the same, does it matter which software program I used initially to rip those CDs into ALAC files?
   
3. And would it matter which software program I use now to convert the ALAC to AIFF?
   

Just curious about your perspective, really, since I have no specific religion in this argument (and yes, that's what it sounds like to this observer, an argument).

 

Dave, who purposely used the term "software program" above rather than "apps" just to be old-fashioned

 

My perspective, and it's a provisional one, would be yes, no, no (for the last two, assuming no errors - I like to use ripping and conversion programs that have error checking though they're slower).

[AlainGr]

My perspective, and it's a provisional one, would be yes, no, no (for the last two, assuming no errors - I like to use ripping and conversion programs that have error checking though they're slower).

+1 I assume that when I rip a CD, it is for a long time, so I prefer a program that will rip for the better once and for all

[sandyk]

+1 I assume that when I rip a CD, it is for a long time, so I prefer a program that will rip for the better once and for all

Hi Alain

What most don't seem to realise, is that it isn't just the software program that governs how good the result will be, it's also very much the quality of the Optical reading device and the quality of it's power supply. Presently, there is far too much accent on software players that try to recover what has already been irretrievably degraded at the ripping stage.

Regards

Alex

 

 

 

 

Signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com/

[wgscott]

If this were the case, then it would not be cross platform. I have heard the differences here on Mac, Windows and Linux (whatever variant Auraliti PK90 uses).

 

Sorry, I didn't realize (remember) that.

 

 

For the record, I (and others here) noticed a distinct difference between wav and aiff using 4 gb of RAM, memory play and such when I used a 2009 mini. The differences between alac and aiff were not tested on platforms other than this, but were pretty distinct as well. Straightaway I converted all of my files to aiff upon testing and never looked back.

 

I also didn't know that it was an aiff/alac difference. FWIW I have 2 of the 2009 minis. I don't use them for audio any more (except casually in my office in one case) but they do seem sub-optimal somehow.

[elcorso]

Hi Roch,

 

Good catch, yes the differences to my ears are considerably smaller with 8 GB RAM versus 1 GB RAM but they are still there. I see you have 16 GB of RAM and superb hardware (Mojo Audio Mac Mini and Playback Designs DAC.) I am using Mojo Audio's Lucent Copper Ribbon Interconnects from DAC to Preamp and from Preamp to Power Amp.

 

In the comparisons I performed with the new 8 GB Mac Mini in every single case the original music file format I downloaded sounded the best so I wonder if in addition to differences heard being due to unpacking lossless files if there are any unaccountable changes in format conversions even though they are bit perfect? I use XLD for format conversions, Pure Music software and Teac UD-501 USB DAC.

 

With a FLAC download I found I preferred in this order: FLAC, WAV, AIFF, ALAC, however with a WAV download I preferred WAV, AIFF, FLAC, ALAC. I was surprised I actually preferred the original lossless FLAC music file over a conversion to either uncompressed music format. On my older 1 GB Mac Mini I always preferred WAV, AIFF, ALAC no matter the file format of the original file, I couldn't play FLAC on the older computer. Of course I realize in the case of lossless formats there was a file conversion by the record company or reseller as masters are either WAV or AIFF.

 

Also since I now have "Memory" playback with Pure Music, could that be a third reason the differences are smaller?

 

Thus that is now three possible reasons for sonic differences:

 

1) unpacking lossless files in real time while the music is playing

2) format conversions

3) lack of memory playback

 

However these differences are so small now I have to really concentrate to hear them whereas on my older Mac Mini they were considerably more pronounced. Thus WAV, AIFF, FLAC and ALAC all sound superb as long as the original master is superb so I am leaving music in the format I download it in unless the original download is WAV in which case I convert it to AIFF for the album cover.

 

Hi Teresa,

 

I don't know what to tell you, and everything I wrote are my very personal opinions:

 

• Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio still recommends the late 2009 Mac Mini as the best computer for audio.

 

• We don't know our download provenance from the two main 3 download places I know (I don't want to state names here). I guess everything is Flacked and expanded depending on the format you want. Since I believe FLAC is not the best source to make further comparisons on expanded music files I only can trust on my own CD rips and some other more serious web places to DL.

 

• You are on Pure Music, I'm on A+ then I believe my player is much more able to catch differences from different music formats, since I consider all the other Mac players camouflage 'something' in music.

 

Just my humble personal opinions and never trying to start again a debate on music formats (containers), but trying to state that for me this "small differences", for others, are still "huge" to my ears, on my never ending persecution to the best music performance regarding SQ.

 

Happy listening,

 

Roch

[Blu]

All I can comment on is what I hear in my system, and at the moment .WAV format files of a good recording sound more like music in an acoustic space than any other file format.

 

Maybe that will change when I upgrade but that is my findings at this time. All I would say is test rip a favourite CD to different format's and if you can hear a diference use the favoured format. If you cannot hear any difference between the formats use some other reason to decide which format is the best for you.

[Superdad]

Hi Alain

What most don't seem to realise, is that it isn't just the software program that governs how good the result will be, it's also very much the quality of the Optical reading device and the quality of it's power supply.

 

Sandyk (I need to call you that since my name is also Alex):

I am open minded to optical drives, their power supplies, and the ripping software/settings making a difference in the quality of the rips.

Despite bits-being-bits, checksum matching, and jitter being an issue only when the data is actually clocked for a conversion, I can recall many vivid experiences years ago (before computer audio) of CD pressing plant and disc materials resulting in variations (in pressings, CDR burns, etc.) that were quite audible.

 

Of course we have known for years that ripping music CDs as data discs (I forget the technical term for this mode), as opposed to the variable-speed realtime scheme of CD players, is THE major advantage of computer audio playback (plus memory play and all the subtler techniques).

 

Certainly, while the bits are still pits and lands on an optical disc, the reading of them MIGHT vary in some way. This is hard for me--and many others--to fathom, since computer s/w would not work if computer disc files were read incorrectly. Yet there have been many detailed discussions and debates on this, so I do not dismiss it. If I recall, things like beginning of file offsets, error handling, and other factors all come into play during a rip. But power supply quality/noise of the ripping drive? Wow.

 

Being a semi-lazy Mac user (not that Mac users are lazy, just that I am), and finding my iTunes AIFF rips (with the mis-named Error Correction turned on) to be exceedingly detailed and satisfying, I have never gone to the effort to purchase a fancier external CD/DVD drive (seek out an ancient original Plexstor?) and immerse myself in the learning curve of EAC settings, etc. That I partially because I really don't want to have to run Windows to run EAC, rip .WAV files, then manually enter metadata.

 

I am sure I missing something, but do you know of really good Mac solutions for rips that would result in an audible improvement? Sure I have XLD, but am not partial to the interface and relatively few have reported that rips with it are noticeably better. It seems you are saying that the real improvements come with a specially selected optical drive being powered by a really good power supply.

Something of that sort (assuming the drive is not $600) would be of interest to me--along with clear recommendations for s/w and parameters.

I do have Windows 7 Pro/64 available to boot into on my desktop Mac (across the room from my dedicated/tweaked music server mini), so I'd be open to connecting a special drive to it and setting up for running EAC if that is required. Available I/O ports are Firewire, USB, Thunderbolt.

 

I look forward to hearing more about what you know (about rip differences) and recommend. Feel free to give links to the most concise of your many other discussions about this elsewhere on the web. Please be as specific as possible with optical drive recommendations (hopefully current production units).

 

Thanks and regards,

ALEX

 

P.S. I do still hear differences between AIFF and ALAC files, but not nearly as dramatically as when I used to run an underpowered 1GB G4 mini. My system resolves many other tiny tweaks so better rips--if they really make a difference--will be heard.

[sandyk]

Hi Superdad.

I am just out of bed, so will be brief here, and give you additional info via email if you wish to contact me.

I won't repeat stuff here that has already been posted many times over already , as a few on the other side get a wee bit uptight when I do. I will however say, that since changing to a new PC with W8/64 , that the differences are getting harder for me to make so obvious, although I still can. More RAM, and less thirsty processors appear to be helping here too.

Regards

SandyK

 

P.S.

If anybody here has an old compilation CD that they made on an earlier model PC and OS, ( e.g. Pentium4 and Windows XP) try ripping some of the tracks again with your present machine and see if the old copy sounds as good as the new copy. I have a compilation CD that I made back in 2005 and it sounds nowhere near as good as recent efforts.

[Superdad]

Sandyk:

Thanks for your reply, but I think your just-awake brain missed the point of my inquiry.

My post was seeking to understand if there are special optical drives and s/w for ripping original CDs which will produce AIFF files superior sounding to those that I rip with my 2010 Mac mini.

 

I no longer care (as used to) about burning better sounding CDRs (and yes, I used to buy those fancy discs with the special dye formulations). I am only interested in making sure that my rips to hard drive of my clean CDs (no scratches to worry about) are the best sounding they can be. I sensed from prior posts of yours that you believe optical drives, the quality of their power supplies, and the software/settings used for ripping can all make a difference.

 

Unlike others, I am not asking you to prove it. Rather I am asking for recommendations for a ripping set up that will allow me to prove (or disprove) it to myself.

 

Kind regards,

ALEX

[sandyk]

Hi Alex

I use Windows exclusively, so I can't recommend any particular software or Optical drives for Apple.

The way the Macs are put together would also likely make it hard, if not impossible to fit PSU add ons, and you would most likely need to go to external Optical devices to replace the existing internal , often unreliable it seems,(grin) Optical writer.

I use an internal LG BluRay writer, but there are other good units available for external use. Ideally, they should be partnered with a good external Linear PSU and preferably use Sata or eSata, perhaps even Firewire ?

A friend gets great results with his W7 PC using an external Plextor BluRay writer and a good Linear PSU, however that writer is quite expensive. Fitting good anti vibration feet to it's case will also further improve results.

Others like Roch may be able to suggest suitable alternatives for Macs.

Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

I mentioned the CDs because they both originally came from rips that were stored on HDD, not because of any CD-R improvements.

It's not easy to otherwise judge any differences due to earlier and later generation PCs and Operating Systems. Some earlier PCs were real "Clunkers" by today's standards.

[spdif-usb]

Yes, they sound the same because neither of both make any sound at all (your playback chain does).

[Teresa]

Hi Roch,

 

I not disagreeing with anything you say, just that the differences were smaller (for me) and less important to me when I went from 1 GB to 8 GB of RAM. My favorite file format so far is 5.6MHz DSF now that I have a DAC that plays DSD in its native format. However this thread is about different lossless and uncompressed PCM formats.

 

For the benefit of others I also wanted to say in discussing different PCM formats (WAV, AIFF, FLAC and ALAC) I am referring to 24 bit PCM downloads only since I don't like CDs.

 

Like you have said to others and I agree I have nothing to prove to anyone, the choice of which file formats I like is based on personal preference only. Since format converters such as XLD are free people can experiment for themselves on their own systems and select the file format they prefer.

[sone]

This has become very silly. CD rips on any ODs produce the exact same files. Try it yourselves:

 

cdparanoia -Bw 1 -f

mv track01.cdda.aiff foo.aiff

cdparanoia -Bw 1 -f

mv track01.cdda.aiff bar.aiff

diff foo.aiff bar.aiff

 

If the files differ on a non-scratched CD, then it's time to buy a new drive.

 

Watching people say that they can hear the difference between lossless formats or the power supplies of optical drives calls to mind Dr. Seuss's The Big Brag:

 

"My ears are so keen and so sharp and so fineNo ears in the world can hear further than mine!"

 

"Humpf!" the bear grunted. He looked at each ear.

"You say they are good," said the bear with a sneer,

"But how do I know just how far they can hear?"

 

 

"I'll prove," said the rabbit, "my ears are the best.

You sit there and watch me. I'll prove it by test."

 

 

Test in this case means being able to hear the flea cough^H^H^H, sorry, AIFF file differences 9 times out of 11 or so at this level of significance: BetaRegularized[1-1/2, 11-2, 2+1]. Good luck with that.

[elcorso]

This has become very silly. CD rips on any ODs produce the exact same files. Try it yourselves:

 

cdparanoia -Bw 1 -f

mv track01.cdda.aiff foo.aiff

cdparanoia -Bw 1 -f

mv track01.cdda.aiff bar.aiff

diff foo.aiff bar.aiff

 

If the files differ on a non-scratched CD, then it's time to buy a new drive.

 

Watching people say that they can hear the difference between lossless formats or the power supplies of optical drives calls to mind Dr. Seuss's The Big Brag:

 

 

 

 

Test in this case means being able to hear the flea cough^H^H^H, sorry, AIFF file differences 9 times out of 11 or so at this level of significance: BetaRegularized[1-1/2, 11-2, 2+1]. Good luck with that.

 

If you can not 'hear' the noise of a bad SPSU your music system doesn't have enough resolution. Or, this noise don't let you listen to SQ differences between music file formats (containers).

 

In the following equation, refered by you there is big error, please replace the 'K" for a "D":

 

 

 

Happy listening,

 

Roch

[sandyk]

Watching people say that they can hear the difference between lossless formats or the power supplies of optical drives calls to mind Dr. Seuss's The Big Brag:

 

Sone

In case you are unaware, the reports by Martin Colloms in HiFi Critic Vol.6 No.1, were the results of 6 separate listening

sessions spread mover a period of several months, with different participants. They were all Blind A/B/A/ 3 minute sessions .

SandyK

[sone]

In the following equation, refered by you there is big error, please replace the 'K" for a "D":

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5173[/ATTACH]

 

There is no error in this expression for the binomial distribution. And I'm even less inclined to accept testimonials made by those who say that can hear a difference between lossless audio formats when they also say that they can hear differences between the exact same file.

[spdif-usb]

I can build you a system that does bitperfect playback of files, yet makes the on-the-fly decoding process of losslessly compressed files so clearly audible that people would laugh at you if you demanded a blind listening test. All I have to do for that is to choose a computer motherboard the onboard sound of which fails to isolate one or more of its critical parts like PLL, power supply and analog signal path from all of the electromagnetic interference that propagates around everywhere inside and outside the whole computer casing.

This has become very silly. CD rips on any ODs produce the exact same files. Try it yourselves:

 

cdparanoia -Bw 1 -f

mv track01.cdda.aiff foo.aiff

cdparanoia -Bw 1 -f

mv track01.cdda.aiff bar.aiff

diff foo.aiff bar.aiff

 

If the files differ on a non-scratched CD, then it's time to buy a new drive.

 

Watching people say that they can hear the difference between lossless formats or the power supplies of optical drives calls to mind Dr. Seuss's The Big Brag:

 

 

 

 

Test in this case means being able to hear the flea cough^H^H^H, sorry, AIFF file differences 9 times out of 11 or so at this level of significance: BetaRegularized[1-1/2, 11-2, 2+1]. Good luck with that.

[sone]

I can build you a system that does bitperfect playback of files, yet makes the on-the-fly decoding process of losslessly compressed files so clearly audible that people would laugh at you if you demanded a blind listening test.

 

Yes, any of us can bork audio playback. But when it's not borked, the computer sends the exact same byte sequence to the DAC/DOUT from memory. You can check this by looking at that byte sequence on your own computer -- it's easy to check. It's the same byte sequence for ALAC, WAV, AIFF, whichever lossless format you choose.

 

A clear audible difference between lossless formats means that you file a bug report with your vendor, not that there's some intrinsic value to one format over another.

[jhwalker]

Yes, any of us can bork audio playback. But when it's not borked, the computer sends the exact same byte sequence to the DAC/DOUT from memory. You can check this by looking at that byte sequence on your own computer -- it's easy to check. It's the same byte sequence for ALAC, WAV, AIFF, whichever lossless format you choose.

 

A clear audible difference between lossless formats means that you file a bug report with your vendor, not that there's some intrinsic value to one format over another.

 

Thank you.

[Paul R]

You didn't happen to pop in from the Gasbag Forum did you? Just wondering, because you seem intent on arguing a point nobody else is arguing.

 

But it is easy to prove your theory to yourself, simply take the time and effort to go listen for yourself. Regardless of what anyone else hears, that will solve the issue for you, won't it?

 

In the meantime, calling other people silly because you think you know what they are talking about is rather rude. You need to take a chill pill on that.

 

-Paul

 

 

This has become very silly. CD rips on any ODs produce the exact same files. Try it yourselves:

 

cdparanoia -Bw 1 -f

mv track01.cdda.aiff foo.aiff

cdparanoia -Bw 1 -f

mv track01.cdda.aiff bar.aiff

diff foo.aiff bar.aiff

 

If the files differ on a non-scratched CD, then it's time to buy a new drive.

 

Watching people say that they can hear the difference between lossless formats or the power supplies of optical drives calls to mind Dr. Seuss's The Big Brag:

 

 

 

 

Test in this case means being able to hear the flea cough^H^H^H, sorry, AIFF file differences 9 times out of 11 or so at this level of significance: BetaRegularized[1-1/2, 11-2, 2+1]. Good luck with that.

[Paul R]

Ah Alex -when you finally get a bit more open-minded and try a Mac, you have a lot of yet to be found audio goodness waiting for you... just saying!

 

-Paul

 

 

 

Hi Alex

I use Windows exclusively, so I can't recommend any particular software or Optical drives for Apple.

The way the Macs are put together would also likely make it hard, if not impossible to fit PSU add ons, and you would most likely need to go to external Optical devices to replace the existing internal , often unreliable it seems,(grin) Optical writer.

I use an internal LG BluRay writer, but there are other good units available for external use. Ideally, they should be partnered with a good external Linear PSU and preferably use Sata or eSata, perhaps even Firewire ?

A friend gets great results with his W7 PC using an external Plextor BluRay writer and a good Linear PSU, however that writer is quite expensive. Fitting good anti vibration feet to it's case will also further improve results.

Others like Roch may be able to suggest suitable alternatives for Macs.

Regards

Alex

 

P.S.

I mentioned the CDs because they both originally came from rips that were stored on HDD, not because of any CD-R improvements.

It's not easy to otherwise judge any differences due to earlier and later generation PCs and Operating Systems. Some earlier PCs were real "Clunkers" by today's standards.

[sandyk]

Paul

Why on earth would I want to do that, when even your highly qualified buddy seems to be falling out of lust with a 2009 model ? The last thing I need is a computer with a flimsy internal Optical writer that according to quite a few reports,

including in this forum, often needs to be replaced at an Apple Service Centre , most likely at retail price PLUS a service fee?

 

Regards

Alex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com/

[sone]

This has become very silly. CD rips on any ODs produce the exact same files. Try it yourselves …

 

You didn't happen to pop in from the Gasbag Forum did you? … calling other people silly because you think you know what they are talking about is rather rude. You need to take a chill pill on that.

 

Beautiful passive aggressive maneuver calling me a gasbag then immediately calling me rude for name-calling -- which I haven't done -- then telling me to chill.

[spdif-usb]

Yes, any of us can bork audio playback. But when it's not borked, the computer sends the exact same byte sequence to the DAC/DOUT from memory. You can check this by looking at that byte sequence on your own computer -- it's easy to check. It's the same byte sequence for ALAC, WAV, AIFF, whichever lossless format you choose.

 

A clear audible difference between lossless formats means that you file a bug report with your vendor, not that there's some intrinsic value to one format over another.

I was talking about *correctly* decoded losslessly compressed files (i.e., NOT a borked decoder that generates decoding errors in the digital domain...). Computer hardware radiates such a huge amount of electromagnetic interference, making the impact of on-the-fly decoding on this electromagnetic interference become audible appears to be tons easier than making it become inaudible.

 

The error-free digital data isn't the culprit. By definition, error-free means free of errors (i.e., information technology is an exact science, after all... albeit apparently, some people just don't seem to grasp that fact). Inadequate galvanic isolation and improper shielding are the culprits. Either that, or the computational hardware / software combo is indeed borked. Next thing you know, people will be claiming paleolithical vacuum tube based computer hardware sounds better than modern silicon transistor chip based computer hardware. Black magic is so fascinating... or is it?

[Paul R]

LOL! Read what I wrote instead of trying to ferment discord.

 

-Paul

 

 

Beautiful passive aggressive maneuver calling me a gasbag then immediately calling me rude for name-calling -- which I haven't done -- then telling me to chill.