# ALAC vs. FLAC



## JonasRas

Is Apple lossless as good as Free lossless audio codec? If not what's the differencen?


----------



## nelamvr6

They are equal, but it seems to me that FLAC is more widely accepted and used.
   
  They are both lossless and will sound identical.
   
  They are different in that they use different schemes to achieve compression.  Also, FLAC is open source and ALAC is not, it is controlled by Apple.


----------



## JonasRas

Thanks, I primarily use iTunes for all my music, so i think ALAC will suit me best.


----------



## skamp

ALAC was open sourced. FLAC compresses a little better. ALAC doesn't have any compression parameters.


----------



## noahbickart

I remember reading somewhere that Apple Lossless was optimized for battery life on decode. This might explain the slightly larger compressed files. But now, of course I can't find the link.
   
There should be no difference in sound, because both FLAC and ALAC provide *bit identical* versions of the .wav or .aiff files from which they were made. You can text this yourself using ffp or md5 tests. Thus, users who use .wav, .aiff, .flac or  lossless .mp4 files (or a "redbook" cd) are all sending identical data streams to their respective DACs. Anyone who claims otherwise simply doesn't understand how digital audio works.
   
I too use ALAC because I can use the files across all the devices I own and use for digital audio (macbook pro [itunes, fidelia, etc.], iPad, iPhone).


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





noahbickart said:


> I remember reading somewhere that Apple Lossless was optimized for battery life on decode. This might explain the slightly larger compressed files. But now, of course I can't find the link.


 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless
   
  "Codec" section, last sentence.


----------



## skamp

FLAC decoding is so efficient, that point is probably moot.


----------



## joseph69

Hi, I am about to take all of Cd's and put them into my macbook pro to download them into my iTunes music library. when attempt to do this will my mac automatically use ALAC to convert my Cd's to my iTunes library, or do I have to choose this from an outside source, or choose it from a menu option on iTunes?
   
   I am totally new to this type of digital music playing, I currently use a Cd player but I want to use both, and I have been doing a lot of research on these different files, but still find it a little confusing being that I've never did this before. If I use iTunes initially to purchase music  and don't like the sound quality from iTunes and want to use another music streamer, can I convert to a different streamer and still use my music through iTunes menu?
   
  Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.


----------



## nelamvr6

Quote: 





skamp said:


> ALAC was open sourced. FLAC compresses a little better. ALAC doesn't have any compression parameters.


 
   
   
  I stand corrected, ALAC is now open sourced.  Thanks for the info!


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





joseph69 said:


> Hi, I am about to take all of Cd's and put them into my macbook pro to download them into my iTunes music library. when attempt to do this will my mac automatically use ALAC to convert my Cd's to my iTunes library, or do I have to choose this from an outside source, or choose it from a menu option on iTunes?
> 
> I am totally new to this type of digital music playing, I currently use a Cd player but I want to use both, and I have been doing a lot of research on these different files, but still find it a little confusing being that I've never did this before. If I use iTunes initially to purchase music  and don't like the sound quality from iTunes and want to use another music streamer, can I convert to a different streamer and still use my music through iTunes menu?
> 
> Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.


 

 That would be a question for an Apple forum - it isn't really a question about sound science, although you may get lucky and get an answer here. But basically, iTunes will do everything it can to lock you in to the Apple eco-system. There will probaly always be something you can do to get out of its stranglehold, but it will be stuff you find fiddly if you're not a confident computer user. Otoh, I don't think there isn't at all to be feared about the quality of playback through iTunes - and different player software would almost certainly use the same codecs (the underlying software things that turn eg mp3 into sound) and so sound the same anyway.
   
  But, you know, if you don't be locked in then you shouldn't buy Apple - because that's what they do and its not exactly a secret. It's the price you pay (along with the doubling of the cost of a decent laptop) for Appleness. Otoh, you probably bought Apple because everything works out of the box with no fuss - and it does work well. So I'd suggest that you relax and enjoy the Apple ride. For converting your CDs with iTunes, read this:
   
  http://www.macworld.com/article/1156861/howto_rip_cds.html
   
  ..I'd suggest converting your CDs as 240 or 320 AACs, btw, NOT ALACs. Nothing except Apple hw will play ALACs, and 240 and certainly 320 aac should sound identical but will be smaller and play on a wide range of DAPs.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





joseph69 said:


> Hi, I am about to take all of Cd's and put them into my macbook pro to download them into my iTunes music library. when attempt to do this will my mac automatically use ALAC to convert my Cd's to my iTunes library, or do I have to choose this from an outside source, or choose it from a menu option on iTunes?
> 
> I am totally new to this type of digital music playing, I currently use a Cd player but I want to use both, and I have been doing a lot of research on these different files, but still find it a little confusing being that I've never did this before. If I use iTunes initially to purchase music  and don't like the sound quality from iTunes and want to use another music streamer, can I convert to a different streamer and still use my music through iTunes menu?
> 
> Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.


 
   
  Click the iTunes menu, pick "Preferences", click "General" (should be the pane that comes up first), look down toward the bottom right side, for "Import Settings".  Click that, and in the next window, click the drop menu "Import Using", pick Apple Lossless Encoder, and "Setting" should be set to "Automatic".  That's it, you're set.  Everything you import will come in bit-perfect, Apple Lossless. 
   
  If by "Streamer" you mean an on-line purchase source, iTunes will play everything natively except FLAC and OGG.  If you want, there are ways to get iTunes to play FLAC but it's sort of a pain, or there are converters that will create bit-perfect AIF or Apple Lossless copies of your purchased FLAC files.  It's a bit of a google project for you...but there out there.  I found this:http://www.bigasoft.com/articles/how-to-convert-flac-to-apple-lossless-audio.html


----------



## nelamvr6

Quote: 





scuttle said:


> ..I'd suggest converting your CDs as 240 or 320 AACs, btw, NOT ALACs. Nothing except Apple hw will play ALACs, and 240 and certainly 320 aac should sound identical but will be smaller and play on a wide range of DAPs.


 
   
   
  I understand that there is quite a debate about being able to hear the difference between lossless and lossy codecs, and I happen to know from personal experience that high bit rate lossy codecs are very good SQ wise.  I agree with you, most, if not all people will find 320 AAC files indistinguishable from ALACs or FLACs.
   
  But if you're going to go to all the trouble to rip ALL of your CDs, don't you think it's a good idea to maintain your archive is lossless form?  Then you can transcode with impunity if you want to put files on a device with less storage space.
   
  Hard drive space is dirt cheap right now, but time is always precious.  If you rip them right and store them as lossless, then you're done.  And if you rip them as ALAC and then discover that you're facing hardware that won't support it, you can transcode to FLAC with no problems.
   
  Personally, I'd choose FLAC because it's more widely supported, but the OP uses Apple hardware, and Saint Steven is still trying to protect his children from FLAC, even from beyond the grave...


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





nelamvr6 said:


> Personally, I'd choose FLAC because it's more widely supported, but the OP uses Apple hardware, and Saint Steven is still trying to protect his children from FLAC, even from beyond the grave...


 
  Yup.  Agreed.  Someday...perhaps...FLAC will be supported in iTunes.  Let's just say I've put in my request.  Until then, no good reason not to do Apple Lossless for iTunes rips.  
   
  Saint Steven...still going in and out of the garden???  With a rose???


----------



## nelamvr6

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Yup.  Agreed.  Someday...perhaps...FLAC will be supported in iTunes.  Let's just say I've put in my request.  Until then, no good reason not to do Apple Lossless for iTunes rips.
> 
> Saint Steven...still going in and out of the garden???  With a rose???


 
   
   
  Of course, he wouldn't leave his rose behind, would he?


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





nelamvr6 said:


> Of course, he wouldn't leave his rose behind, would he?


 
  Well, since wherever he goes people all complain...you never know.  
   
  OK, we know the same tunes.


----------



## nelamvr6

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Well, since wherever he goes people all complain...you never know.
> 
> OK, we know the same tunes.


----------



## skamp

scuttle said:


> Nothing except Apple hw will play ALACs




Wrong, your beloved Rockboxed Clip+ will play them, no problem. There are also free decoders for all computer platforms (ffmpeg is one of them), so you can later convert them to FLAC or whatever.

Edit: foobar2000 on Windows and DeadBeef on linux also have native ALAC support, to name just those two.


----------



## joseph69

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Click the iTunes menu, pick "Preferences", click "General" (should be the pane that comes up first), look down toward the bottom right side, for "Import Settings".  Click that, and in the next window, click the drop menu "Import Using", pick Apple Lossless Encoder, and "Setting" should be set to "Automatic".  That's it, you're set.  Everything you import will come in bit-perfect, Apple Lossless.
> 
> If by "Streamer" you mean an on-line purchase source, iTunes will play everything natively except FLAC and OGG.  If you want, there are ways to get iTunes to play FLAC but it's sort of a pain, or there are converters that will create bit-perfect AIF or Apple Lossless copies of your purchased FLAC files.  It's a bit of a google project for you...but there out there.  I found this:http://www.bigasoft.com/articles/how-to-convert-flac-to-apple-lossless-audio.html


 
  Thank you very much for this info and your input, and also the website that you provided for me. Thank you.


----------



## joseph69

Quote: 





jaddie said:


> Click the iTunes menu, pick "Preferences", click "General" (should be the pane that comes up first), look down toward the bottom right side, for "Import Settings".  Click that, and in the next window, click the drop menu "Import Using", pick Apple Lossless Encoder, and "Setting" should be set to "Automatic".  That's it, you're set.  Everything you import will come in bit-perfect, Apple Lossless.
> 
> If by "Streamer" you mean an on-line purchase source, iTunes will play everything natively except FLAC and OGG.  If you want, there are ways to get iTunes to play FLAC but it's sort of a pain, or there are converters that will create bit-perfect AIF or Apple Lossless copies of your purchased FLAC files.  It's a bit of a google project for you...but there out there.  I found this:http://www.bigasoft.com/articles/how-to-convert-flac-to-apple-lossless-audio.html


 
  Thanks for the guide on how to get into the menu settings so I can begin converting, and also the website that you provided. Thank you.


----------



## jaddie

Quote: 





joseph69 said:


> Thanks for the guide on how to get into the menu settings so I can begin converting, and also the website that you provided. Thank you.


 
  Also look around for XLD, which converts FLAC to anything.


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





skamp said:


> Wrong, your beloved Rockboxed Clip+ will play them, no problem.


 
   
  ..That's an interesting option; the last time I checked ALAC support on Rockbox it was flakey, but looking at the codecs page it seems to be mature now.


----------



## nelamvr6

Quote: 





scuttle said:


> ..That's an interesting option; the last time I checked ALAC support on Rockbox it was flakey, but looking at the codecs page it seems to be mature now.


 
   
  Those Rockbox guys are a hard working bunch!


----------



## scuttle

Quote: 





nelamvr6 said:


> Those Rockbox guys are a hard working bunch!


 
   
  Yes, but you have to wonder at their sanity... Checking the codecs page http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/SoundCodecs there's all sorts of crazy stuff. A plug-in for playing midi is semi-sane - this means playing real midi using a software synth inside of rockbox rather than recordings made from midi - but support for sid? Which is "music from Commodore 64 games and other productions" - is their sub-culture of people who listen to music from 1980s 8-bit computer games and who refuse to use recordings because that wouldn't be in the right spirit? So someone hacked rockbox so it can read these files directly and _synthesize_ the soundtrack to Star Raiders???


----------



## nelamvr6

Quote: 





scuttle said:


> Yes, but you have to wonder at their sanity... Checking the codecs page http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/SoundCodecs there's all sorts of crazy stuff. A plug-in for playing midi is semi-sane - this means playing real midi using a software synth inside of rockbox rather than recordings made from midi - but support for sid? Which is "music from Commodore 64 games and other productions" - is their sub-culture of people who listen to music from 1980s 8-bit computer games and who refuse to use recordings because that wouldn't be in the right spirit? So someone hacked rockbox so it can read these files directly and _synthesize_ the soundtrack to Star Raiders???


 
   
   
  They embody the spirit of the primal hackers!  If the hardware can support a codec, you should be able to use it by gawd!


----------



## OceanGuru

Quote: 





nelamvr6 said:


> They embody the spirit of the primal hackers!  If the hardware can support a codec, you should be able to use it by gawd!


 
  This. Of course it isn't just codecs. A person could get lost for days in the settings menu Rockbox provides exploring all the tweaks.


----------



## hogger129

jonasras said:


> Is Apple lossless as good as Free lossless audio codec? If not what's the differencen?


 
  
 They both do the same thing, though it seems there is more support for FLAC than Apple Lossless.  Make sure you use a secure ripper when you create the lossless file, and I'd say use whatever your devices support more.
  
 FWIW, there is an app in the iTunes Store to play FLAC on an iPod; so I'd probably suggest using FLAC instead of Apple Lossless.


----------



## kyo9112

Isnt AIFF better than ALAC?
 I get confused here


----------



## noahbickart

kyo9112 said:


> Isnt AIFF better than ALAC?
> I get confused here


 
  
 Nope.
  
 They are the same.
  
 Bit for bit identical in fact.


----------



## whocaifeng

good,Saint Steven is still trying to protect his children from FLAC, even from beyond the grave.


----------



## hogger129

kyo9112 said:


> Isnt AIFF better than ALAC?
> I get confused here


 
  
 In terms of the sound quality, AIFF = ALAC.  AIFF has more support across more devices, but ALAC uses less space.  I would just use whatever your playback devices support.


----------



## limpidglitch

hogger129 said:


> In terms of the sound quality, AIFF = ALAC.


 
  
 Even more than that, as noahbickart said, they are bit _identical_. No need to mince words.


----------



## Jpbas1

It should be about the music, first and foremost.  Getting the best reproduction of the original source is key.  I get that.  I have both Mac based and PC systems in my home.  Utilizing iTunes and ripping to ALAC is convenience choice/decision- and not a performance one.
  
 If anyone has conducted a double blind study- I'd be very interested in their conclusions.  But "if it's just identical lossless" information being converted to two to equally good playback formats- then this argument truly is moot.


----------



## ralphp@optonline

nelamvr6 said:


> Personally, I'd choose FLAC because it's more widely supported, but the OP uses Apple hardware, and Saint Steven is still trying to protect his children from FLAC, even from beyond the grave...


 
 Steven is just a saint? And here I was think He was God.
  
 By the way, Steven also projects His children from the evil mkv video format and that nasty flash stuff.


----------



## hogger129

Use what your equipment supports.  If you are on Apple stuff, then use ALAC.  Otherwise I've seen no reason NOT to use FLAC.  When I have a piece of hardware that doesn't support it, I convert to WAV or 320 MP3.


----------



## Joshua277456

FLAC and ALAC will produce the exact same audio.
  
 The only thing that might be different is the size of the audio files due to different methods of compression, or lack thereof.
  
 Anyone who tells you there is a difference is an ignoramus.


----------



## itoaj38

Geez, I can’t believe I had to join, because with all these insults nobody toke the time to simply answer a simple question without sarcasm. If you are using a Mac, instead of iTunes use the free downloadable app named XLD for your CD importing or if you wish all your Audio importing as it supports everything from Lossless to all that's in-between. People actually join these forums to gain some knowledge, project a legitimate question or simply just to help, personal feelings toward a product, company or dead guy only shows your high level of ignorance, not knowledge.


----------



## ralphp@optonline

itoaj38 said:


> Geez, I can’t believe I had to join, because with all these insults nobody toke the time to simply answer a simple question without sarcasm. If you are using a Mac, instead of iTunes use the free downloadable app named XLD for your CD importing or if you wish all your Audio importing as it supports everything from Lossless to all that's in-between. People actually join these forums to gain some knowledge, project a legitimate question or simply just to help, personal feelings toward a product, company or dead guy only shows your high level of ignorance, not knowledge.


 

 Question: Did you read the entire thread from the beginning?
  
 The original poster's questions were all answered on the first page and the remaining posts are just typical forum rambling. There's no need to beat us up about it and besides people don't Apple computers to use third party software and work arounds. They buy Macs to use iTunes and all things Apple. The posts explaining how to rip a CD to Apple lossless completely answered the question. It's best for all concerned that we do our best to keep the evil FLAC as far away from Mac users as possible since there's no telling what kind of chaos might ensue.
  
 Edit: By the way, welcome to Head-Fi!


----------



## vermilions

Hi, just want to ask a question regarding FLAC and ALAC. I am using Mac and iPods, but recently I've been eyeing some non-Apple DAPs like the iBasso DX50, Fiio X3/X5, etc.

 I'm also in the progress of converting some lower bit-rate songs in my iTunes library to either 320kpbs MP3 or lossless (ALAC). Should I be bothering with FLACs at all? I know those higher "audiophile grade" DAPs usually decode ALACs, but will it be more efficient with FLACs? Or is there no difference? Thanks in advance.


----------



## hogger129

vermilions said:


> Hi, just want to ask a question regarding FLAC and ALAC. I am using Mac and iPods, but recently I've been eyeing some non-Apple DAPs like the iBasso DX50, Fiio X3/X5, etc.
> 
> I'm also in the progress of converting some lower bit-rate songs in my iTunes library to either 320kpbs MP3 or lossless (ALAC). Should I be bothering with FLACs at all? I know those higher "audiophile grade" DAPs usually decode ALACs, but will it be more efficient with FLACs? Or is there no difference? Thanks in advance.


 
  
 I know for a fact that the Fiio X3 and X5 can play both formats.  As for the iBasso, I don't know.  Since you are on a Mac and use iPods, and possibly may purchase a Fiio X3 or X5 in the future, I would go with Apple Lossless. 
  
 Myself, I use WAV for everything.  It works on everything and I don't need to worry about something not being able to decode it bit-perfectly.  I'm not too worried about metadata working across a lot of stuff either.  Foobar2000 recognized the WAV metadata that dBpoweramp writes, so does my Fiio X3 and Sansa Clip Zip. 
  
  
 ---
  
 Also, converting lower bitrate songs to 320k or lossless is not going to improve sound quality because the source file is still whatever lower bitrate you're coming from.


----------



## kraken2109

vermilions said:


> Hi, just want to ask a question regarding FLAC and ALAC. I am using Mac and iPods, but recently I've been eyeing some non-Apple DAPs like the iBasso DX50, Fiio X3/X5, etc.
> 
> I'm also in the progress of* converting some lower bit-rate songs* in my iTunes library to *either 320kpbs MP3 or lossless (ALAC)*. Should I be bothering with FLACs at all? I know those higher "audiophile grade" DAPs usually decode ALACs, but will it be more efficient with FLACs? Or is there no difference? Thanks in advance.


 
 wat


----------



## Tuco1965

kraken2109 said:


> wat



X2
There's no point in converting low bit rate. You need to re-rip at a higher rate from the start to gain anything.


----------



## wnmnkh

ALAC does not have error handling while FLAC does.
  
 It means, if the hard drive is corrupted/damaged and files got damages... Well, FLAC will play parts that are not damaged, while ALAC won't play ANY information.
  
 I can't recommend ALAC as main format if you have a large collection.
  
 http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison
  
 See this wiki for more information.


----------



## vermilions

tuco1965 said:


> X2
> There's no point in converting low bit rate. You need to re-rip at a higher rate from the start to gain anything.


 

  Sorry, language misunderstanding! What I mean is re-ripping my CDs to 320kpbs MP3 or ALAC. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  


wnmnkh said:


> ALAC does not have error handling while FLAC does.
> 
> It means, if the hard drive is corrupted/damaged and files got damages... Well, FLAC will play parts that are not damaged, while ALAC won't play ANY information.
> 
> ...


 
  Is 7000+ songs considered a large collection?


----------



## wnmnkh

vermilions said:


> tuco1965 said:
> 
> 
> > X2
> ...


 
 Well, 'large' is subjective word indeed. For me, +7000 songs are indeed a large collection. Say, if that library is consists of 15-song albums per 10 bucks, approx price of that +7000 songs is 4.6K USD, that's quite a lot of money, and having at least a backup harddrive for those songs wouldn't hurt in case of emergency situation.
  
 That said, surprisingly a lot of stuffs do not play ALAC natively but does play FLAC no problem. I guess the situation will get better since ALAC is now free-to-implement.... but for technical details FLAC is better (I believe FLAC is actually more efficient than ALAC for encoding. see the wiki for decoding speed).


----------



## bigshot

If you have a REALLY large music library, lossless starts not making sense any more. My library is pushing a year and a half's worth of music at last count. In lossless, it probably wouldn't all fit on one drive. But in AAC 256 VBR it easily fits with space to spare, and the sound quality is identical.


----------



## Duartisimo

*edit


----------



## bigshot

As I understand it, the only difference compression levels make in lossless is the speed at which the ripper rips, which affects file size. The end result sounds the same, but the file size might be a little different.


----------



## Duartisimo

*edit


----------



## bigshot

I've ripped thousands and thousands of CDs using iTunes with the safe rip box checked. No problems. I own the CDs anyway, so it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Duartisimo

*edit


----------



## vermilions

wnmnkh said:


> Well, 'large' is subjective word indeed. For me, +7000 songs are indeed a large collection. Say, if that library is consists of 15-song albums per 10 bucks, approx price of that +7000 songs is 4.6K USD, that's quite a lot of money, and having at least a backup harddrive for those songs wouldn't hurt in case of emergency situation.
> 
> That said, surprisingly a lot of stuffs do not play ALAC natively but does play FLAC no problem. I guess the situation will get better since ALAC is now free-to-implement.... but for technical details FLAC is better (I believe FLAC is actually more efficient than ALAC for encoding. see the wiki for decoding speed).


 
 Yeah, come to think of it... that's a lot of money! My parents and a few relatives have passed on their CD collections to me and I guess it's my job to make sure I keep them in good condition! Yeah, I have them all backed up using Glacier.  Thanks for your advice!


----------



## Duartisimo

*edit


----------



## wnmnkh

duartisimo said:


> By the way, you guys know of a device that can effectively repair CDs? I know there was a Canadian brand called Disc-Go-Pod, but their most simple product has been discontinued and i have a few that need repairing. Tried Skip DR, but just wasn't good enough.
> Or a company in the US that can provide that kind of service?


 
  
 I really think it's better buy a used CD from Amazon or ebay. People are literally selling them like 25 cents.


----------



## Duartisimo

*edit


----------



## bigshot

Meguire's Plastic cleaner and polish work great on clearing up scratches on CDs.


----------



## FiJAAS

I was going to buy a Fiio X5 to play my ripped CD's converted to FLAC using XLD on a iMac....but now I'm tempted to buy a iPod Classic 7th Gen. I just learned two days ago that you can convert FLAC to ALAC. Guys could you help me make the right decision?

Fiio X5
Fiio E12
Beyerdynamic DT-770 250 OHMs
FLAC

...or

iPod Classic 7th Generation
Fiio E12
Beyerdynamic DT-770 250 OHMs
ALAC


----------



## hogger129

fijaas said:


> I was going to buy a Fiio X5 to play my ripped CD's converted to FLAC using XLD on a iMac....but now I'm tempted to buy a iPod Classic 7th Gen. I just learned two days ago that you can convert FLAC to ALAC. Guys could you help me make the right decision?
> 
> Fiio X5
> Fiio E12
> ...


 
  
 I really liked the X5 when I was in the test trial.  It drove my Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones very well.  I own the X3 currently and like it a lot.  The X5 just felt like a better design to me ergonomically speaking.  It reminded me a lot of the iPod Classic's shape, but it has better sound, you're not tied into iTunes, it can play pretty much any format that I could throw at it.  I almost like the X5 more than my X3 just for the extra capacity it can carry and I liked the design more. 
  
 Now the iPod.  It has more capacity, 160gb compared to the X5 which can carry 2 microSD cards for a total of 128gb.  It will not play FLAC without installing Rockbox - which can be done on the 7th Gen.  Running out to that E12, I'm not sure how it would sound.  Without that, the X5 sounds better. 
  
 My choice would probably be the X5.  Mostly for the better sound quality and not being tied into iTunes.  Oh and the X5 can output resolutions past 16/48 if you have any of those 24-bit files you might want to play.


----------



## FiJAAS

hogger129 said:


> I really liked the X5 when I was in the test trial.  It drove my Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones very well.  I own the X3 currently and like it a lot.  The X5 just felt like a better design to me ergonomically speaking.  It reminded me a lot of the iPod Classic's shape, but it has better sound, you're not tied into iTunes, it can play pretty much any format that I could throw at it.  I almost like the X5 more than my X3 just for the extra capacity it can carry and I liked the design more.
> 
> Now the iPod.  It has more capacity, 160gb compared to the X5 which can carry 2 microSD cards for a total of 128gb.  It will not play FLAC without installing Rockbox - which can be done on the 7th Gen.  Running out to that E12, I'm not sure how it would sound.  Without that, the X5 sounds better.
> 
> My choice would probably be the X5.  Mostly for the better sound quality and not being tied into iTunes.  Oh and the X5 can output resolutions past 16/48 if you have any of those 24-bit files you might want to play.




Thanks for you're input!
So it pretty much boils down to space.


----------



## bigshot

I love iTunes. I love my iPod, iPhone and iPad. Lossless to lossless is same same. The features are what count. If you are Mac based, you should stick with Apple, because all of Apples software and hardware is designed to work together seamlessly. The people who don't like iTunes or iPods don't own Mac computers.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I love iTunes. I love my iPod, iPhone and iPad. Lossless to lossless is same same. The features are what count. If you are Mac based, you should stick with Apple, because all of Apples software and hardware is designed to work together seamlessly. The people who don't like iTunes or iPods don't own Mac computers.


 

 +1 to that. and I'm an anti apple nazi by heart.
 everything on mac is done so that when you have one product, compatibility is reduced as much as they can from other plateforms to force you into getting the all package from them. it's taking people for sheeps IMO. but on the other hand, when you're all mac, it does perform very well. so as you're already "stuck" in it, why not go all the way and enjoy the benefits of mac.


----------



## bigshot

I have yet to find anything I can throw at my mac mini and not have it handle beautifully... It hosts a music library with two years worth of music on it. It serves hidef video to my projection system. It has 75TB of online storage. It plays any file format I want. And it does all of that simply and intuitively. Can't complain about that.


----------



## FiJAAS

hogger129 said:


> I really liked the X5 when I was in the test trial.  It drove my Audio Technica ATH-M50 headphones very well.  I own the X3 currently and like it a lot.  The X5 just felt like a better design to me ergonomically speaking.  It reminded me a lot of the iPod Classic's shape, but it has better sound, you're not tied into iTunes, it can play pretty much any format that I could throw at it.  I almost like the X5 more than my X3 just for the extra capacity it can carry and I liked the design more.
> 
> Now the iPod.  It has more capacity, 160gb compared to the X5 which can carry 2 microSD cards for a total of 128gb.  It will not play FLAC without installing Rockbox - which can be done on the 7th Gen.  Running out to that E12, I'm not sure how it would sound.  Without that, the X5 sounds better.
> 
> My choice would probably be the X5.  Mostly for the better sound quality and not being tied into iTunes.  Oh and the X5 can output resolutions past 16/48 if you have any of those 24-bit files you might want to play.




I thought that rockbox was unfinished on the ipod 7th gen ?


----------



## hogger129

fijaas said:


> I thought that rockbox was unfinished on the ipod 7th gen ?


 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5V9lEsd5To


----------



## FiJAAS

I have a question?
I ripped all of my CDs to 16/44.1 ALAC using XLD.
I wish to transfer them to my iPod using iTunes. 
The question is, is it true itunes converts the ALAC file to AAC when transferring them to an iPod? 
How can I transfer ALAC files to my iPod correctly?


----------



## hogger129

fijaas said:


> I have a question?
> I ripped all of my CDs to 16/44.1 ALAC using XLD.
> I wish to transfer them to my iPod using iTunes.
> The question is, is it true itunes converts the ALAC file to AAC when transferring them to an iPod?
> How can I transfer ALAC files to my iPod correctly?


 
  
 No, it will import them as ALAC.  Just make sure your iPod is not set to "Import Higher Quality Songs as:"  As long as this box is unchecked, it will sync them up as ALAC.  My only caution is that lossless really is pointless when you have limited space like an iPod.  Contrary to what some say, vbr AAC is actually sounds pretty good compared to cd-quality lossless.


----------



## bigshot

AAC at a sufficient bit rate is audibly transparent. Human ears can't discern a difference between it and lossless.


----------



## FiJAAS

hogger129 said:


> No, it will import them as ALAC.  Just make sure your iPod is not set to "Import Higher Quality Songs as:"  As long as this box is unchecked, it will sync them up as ALAC.  My only caution is that lossless really is pointless when you have limited space like an iPod.  Contrary to what some say, vbr AAC is actually sounds pretty good compared to cd-quality lossless.




Thanks again!


----------



## hogger129

bigshot said:


> AAC at a sufficient bit rate is audibly transparent. Human ears can't discern a difference between it and lossless.


 
  
 It is.  I can't tell a difference if I ABX test in foobar2000.  All my CD's are backed up as FLAC and then I just make LAME V0 MP3 versions for my Sansa.


----------



## FiJAAS

Guys, as you know I'm in the process of ripping all of my CD's to ALAC. I'm on the verge of purchasing the iPod Classic 7th Generation and the Beyerdynamics DT-770 250 OHM. As you know I stated that I would purchase the Fiio E12, but do you guys think also if I add JDS Labs Standalone DAC would it be a perfect fit with the three?


----------



## Mambosenior

Does the JDS accept digital output from IPod Classic?


----------



## FiJAAS

mambosenior said:


> Does the JDS accept digital output from IPod Classic?




Not sure, I couldn't find anything about the iPod Classic on there.

http://www.jdslabs.com/products/46/standalone-odac/


----------



## Roly1650

fijaas said:


> Guys, as you know I'm in the process of ripping all of my CD's to ALAC. I'm on the verge of purchasing the iPod Classic 7th Generation and the Beyerdynamics DT-770 250 OHM. As you know I stated that I would purchase the Fiio E12, but do you guys think also if I add JDS Labs Standalone DAC would it be a perfect fit with the three?




The iPods, iPads and iPhones are audibly transparent devices into the vast majority of headphones and iems and would match the DT-770's fine. The JDS Labs dac will neither add or subtract anything audible to the listening experience, so why bother. Also, if the iPod Classic drives the DT-770's to a loud enough level for you, which they probably will, you won't need an external amp either, if you're after a neutral sound signature.


----------



## bigshot

Roly nailed it.


----------



## FiJAAS

roly1650 said:


> The iPods, iPads and iPhones are audibly transparent devices into the vast majority of headphones and iems and would match the DT-770's fine. The JDS Labs dac will neither add or subtract anything audible to the listening experience, so why bother. Also, if the iPod Classic drives the DT-770's to a loud enough level for you, which they probably will, you won't need an external amp either, if you're after a neutral sound signature.




I'm sorry I meant JDS Labs C5 Headphone Amplifire vs. Fiio E12.


----------



## Roly1650

fijaas said:


> I'm sorry I meant JDS Labs C5 Headphone Amplifire vs. Fiio E12.




Same logic applies, if the iPod is driving the headphones to a safe adequate volume, the additional headphone amp is not adding anything to the equation. Use the money saved on more music.


----------



## bigshot

Headphone amps and external DACs are often not needed at all. It's possible to get everything all in one package.


----------



## FiJAAS

Thanks for the knowledge!


----------



## eahm

Another reason to use ALAC, Google Play Music doesn't convert them to MP3: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1100462?hl=en


----------



## kraken2109

jhondoe said:


> Another reason to use ALAC, Google Play Music doesn't convert them to MP3: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1100462?hl=en


 

 How weird


----------



## FiJAAS

So today I ripped a CD in XLD both in FLAC and in ALAC. Both at same bit rate as CD.

My FLAC is a monstrous size compared to ALAC. One FLAC file came out to 95 mb while the ALAC file came out to 56.5 mb. What gives?

I also heard a difference between the files, FLAC had a little more "ump" to it.


----------



## bigshot

Isn't it amazing how just knowing a file is bigger it makes you think it sounds different? Expectation bias at work.
  
 Both files are lossless and bit perfect. They sound the same. Use the format that your equipment supports and is smallest in file size.


----------



## castleofargh

fijaas said:


> So today I ripped a CD in XLD both in FLAC and in ALAC. Both at same bit rate as CD.
> 
> My FLAC is a monstrous size compared to ALAC. One FLAC file came out to 95 mb while the ALAC file came out to 56.5 mb. What gives?
> 
> I also heard a difference between the files, FLAC had a little more "ump" to it.


 

 first, just use another compression level on flac if you want the file to be smaller. flac and alac are pretty much the same actually so pick anyone, they're good at making files about 50% the size of the original. and last time I tried flac could do slightly better than alac (but really not a difference that mattered it was a few kilos).
 just know that with flac, the file size going down when you chose a bigger compression, also means the cpu having to work a little more to extract it.
  
 second, you just experienced first hand a good old placebo effect. by definition both flac and alac being lossless mean that they're actually reverted to the exact same pcm file before being read by the dac. think zip file, once extracted it is the original file and nothing else.


----------



## sonitus mirus

jhondoe said:


> Another reason to use ALAC, Google Play Music doesn't convert them to MP3: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1100462?hl=en


 
  
 I had to test this out for myself, as this didn't seem right to me.  
  
 What I found is that Google Music does transcode ALAC files to a 320 CBR Lame (3.98r) mp3 file.
  
 I used dBpoweramp to rip a CD to ALAC.  Uploaded this song to Google Music All Access, and then downloaded the file from Google Music back to my PC.
  
 Here are the results, visually represented.
  

  
  
  
 Basically, the file was uploaded as ALAC (left screen capture), converted by Google and playable as a 320 CBR mp3 (middle screen capture).  When I downloaded this file back to my computer, it remained in the Google transcoded format (right screen capture), apparently using Lame. (see below)
  

  
  
 This is fine as an option, since Google is transcoding from a lossless format using Lame, which is basically what I do, but my lossless format is the CD itself.  There is an unnecessary step involved to get the music on Google, the upload process is much slower, and it would not be ideal to use Google for archiving if you expect to keep the ALAC format.
  
  
 When I rip a CD to a Lame VBR 0 file, Google does not change the file at all.  I can play my files in the same format that they were uploaded.
  

  
 And when I download these songs back to my PC, you can see that Google does not alter the file at all, as it still has the same bitrate and even the same version of Lame used to initially create the file.
  

  
 For now, I will continue to use Lame VBR 0 to upload my own music to Google.  
  
 I have read that a FLAC song can have the extension changed to ".mp3" and these will upload to Google Music without any transcoding, but they will not play.  However, as a tool to archive up to 20,000 songs, this might be useful to some people, even if only for a temporary solution or to assist in transferring music from one computer to another at different locations.


----------



## eahm

kraken2109 said:


> How weird


 
 They do actually, the page was confusing so they changed it: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1100462?hl=en


----------



## rosbifmark

"ALAC does not have error handling while FLAC does.
  
 It means, if the hard drive is corrupted/damaged and files got damages... Well, FLAC will play parts that are not damaged, while ALAC won't play ANY information."
  
  
  
 I've read about ALAC lacking in error detection. But here's a question-  let's say I rip some music to ALAC files, but these files have errors. In which case, I may not be able to play the files.
 What if I now convert the ALAC files to FLAC - does this now mean that I will now be able to play the FLAC files (the undamaged parts), or will I have lost this capabilty since the files were once ALAC (without the error handling capability)?


----------



## headwhacker

rosbifmark said:


> "ALAC does not have error handling while FLAC does.
> 
> It means, if the hard drive is corrupted/damaged and files got damages... Well, FLAC will play parts that are not damaged, while ALAC won't play ANY information."
> 
> ...


 
 I would not lose sleep over this. Today's storage has builtin error detection. All you need is a reliable backup system.
  
 If your rips in ALAC are not playing at least it will let you know that your rips are bad right away. In the case of FLAC you may not know if the damage part is somewhere in the middle of the file and you may not be aware of it right away.
  
 As far as converting ALAC to FLAC. You might recover the damaged part but the question is, if it sound just like the original file. Sometimes, the damaged part will be replaced by clicks or a short skip in order to read/play the whole file.


----------



## rosbifmark

Thanks Headwhacker. It's nice to have a common sense answer- and yes, actually I would prefer to know right away that my rips are bad. At least that way, I can re-rip to make a good file.


----------



## castleofargh

when you rip an album, you check for errors(at least you should). what does it matter if it's flac or alac or .zip? do you plan on copying the file around all day long on 10different drives for the fun of it?
 even if there was actually a lot of chances for errors when copying, this isn't 1995 anymore and errors wouldn't just kill some dumb music file while running complicated programs as if it was nothing.
 but still if that's of any concern to you guys, you could still use whatever software to generate and check md5 hashes or whatever.
 what I'm trying to say is that data didn't suddenly become a mystery because it contains music. we all know how audiophiles want to think they're special people with special needs, but we also know that's BS most of the time.
  
 keep your music doubled on 2separate drives, because a hard drive dying on us is something that does happen along the years. if you're paranoid, keep one copy of your music in another house in case you house burns down one day or your computer gets robbed. or put some stuff on the cloud... that's all very close to paranoia, but some data deserve those behaviors. that I can understand.  but picking a lossless format instead of another because of some wild interpretation of something you've read? forget about it.


----------



## Auralexcellence

I've been wondering: in regards to sound quality, would a stellar lossless CD rip (.WAV) through something modest, like the Fiio X3, be able to touch the quality a super high-end CD player yields? Why or why not? *Supposing equivalent amplification and speakers. If this is too far off-topic, kindly direct me to the appropriate outlet.


----------



## kraken2109

auralexcellence said:


> I've been wondering: in regards to sound quality, would a stellar lossless CD rip (.WAV) through something modest, like the Fiio X3, be able to touch the quality a super high-end CD player yields? Why or why not? *Supposing equivalent amplification and speakers. If this is too far off-topic, kindly direct me to the appropriate outlet.


 
 If you plug both using their respective line-out, the only difference in your suggestion is the DAC.
  
 I personally expect the DAC in the X3 to be transparent, so they would probably sound the same.


----------



## Auralexcellence

kraken2109 said:


> If you plug both using their respective line-out, the only difference in your suggestion is the DAC.
> 
> I personally expect the DAC in the X3 to be transparent, so they would probably sound the same.


 

 Right, my thoughts as well. It seems like the bang for my buck option is to omit the CD player and allocate more money towards the DAC.


----------



## bigshot

Just about all CD players and DACs are audibly transparent. There isn't likely to be any difference at all between them. The reason to choose one over the other is features and convenience, not sound quality.


----------



## Auralexcellence

bigshot said:


> Just about all CD players and DACs are audibly transparent. There isn't likely to be any difference at all between them. The reason to choose one over the other is features and convenience, not sound quality.


 

 Maybe. I must say, there's quite a bit of mark-up on features and convenience, then.


----------



## Head Injury

auralexcellence said:


> Maybe. I must say, there's quite a bit of mark-up on features and convenience, then.


 

 Oh, most people think they're getting better sound for their money, too. Welcome to Head-Fi!


----------



## bigshot

auralexcellence said:


> Maybe. I must say, there's quite a bit of mark-up on features and convenience, then.




By George, I think you've got it!


----------



## SilentFrequency

I honestly cannot tell the difference between alac and flac


----------



## ralphp@optonline

silentfrequency said:


> I honestly cannot tell the difference between alac and flac


 

 Which is as it should be. Or phrased in another way "I can dishonestly tell the difference between alac and flac."


----------



## freqazoidiac

Because there is no difference. The differences are the file size and encoding / decoding factors.


----------



## ramachandra

I'm an audiophile and the difference between the FLAC and ALAC format is significant by listening. Mostly i buy music from Bandcamp and i have 6 options to chose between the formats to download. The musics are uploaded as AIFF, WAW, or FLAC and the conversion is completed automatically to the required format. So it is pretty easy to compare the same song. My conclusion is the ALAC have a better dynamic and clarity, listening songs in FLAC format (even from different origin) is sound flat and distorted in the high mid-range.
  
 The hardware probably have nothing to do with this because 5 different external DAC sitting on my desk, what i built up from the best components i can put may hands on. My relative have the same conclusion on his different gear, and player on his PC. I have a DT990Pro and i sometimes use a T90, but i do not need the T90 to reach this conclusion. (If i have to do a blind comparison on a portable player i bet i loose and i agree format doesn't matter.)
  
 To make it clear, i do not care about Apple and their products, but even if the difference it is based on the encoding/decoding i go for the ALAC in the future and avoid FLAC if there is an option.


----------



## hogger129

ramachandra said:


> I'm an audiophile and the difference between the FLAC and ALAC format is significant by listening. Mostly i buy music from Bandcamp and i have 6 options to chose between the formats to download. The musics are uploaded as AIFF, WAW, or FLAC and the conversion is completed automatically to the required format. So it is pretty easy to compare the same song. My conclusion is the ALAC have a better dynamic and clarity, listening songs in FLAC format (even from different origin) is sound flat and distorted in the high mid-range.
> 
> The hardware probably have nothing to do with this because 5 different external DAC sitting on my desk, what i built up from the best components i can put may hands on. My relative have the same conclusion on his different gear, and player on his PC. I have a DT990Pro and i sometimes use a T90, but i do not need the T90 to reach this conclusion. (If i have to do a blind comparison on a portable player i bet i loose and i agree format doesn't matter.)
> 
> To make it clear, i do not care about Apple and their products, but even if the difference it is based on the encoding/decoding i go for the ALAC in the future and avoid FLAC if there is an option.


 
  
 Compare the checksums and run a double blind test.  There is no difference.  ALAC=FLAC=WAV=AIFF=PCM.


----------



## ralphp@optonline

hogger129 said:


> Compare the checksums and run a double blind test.  There is no difference.  ALAC=FLAC=WAV=AIFF=PCM.


 

 While what you state is basically true, your "ALAC=FLAC=WAV=AIFF=PCM" equation does need some additional information:
  
 The original PCM file can be converted to any of the other four formats and in turn each of these formats can be converted to any of the other formats which in turn can be converted back to PCM and then checksums of the two PCM files (original file and converted/reconverrted file) will be identical. The number times the file is converted and sequence used makes no difference. For example the conversion sequence can be:
  
 PCM > WAV > FLAC > AIFF > FLAC > ALAC > WAV > PCM
  
 or
  
 PCM > ALAC > WAV > FLAC > PCM
  
 And the resulting PCM files would be identical.


----------



## ramachandra

I do not think this have anything to do with data loss or corruption. Simply after listening music in ALAC format for a period it is becoming obvious anything in FLAC format sound more flat. How obvious is probably based on the gear. From players I'm using Winamp on my PC, my relative a Foobar fan. If both software use the same decoding algorithm it make sense.


----------



## nick_charles

ramachandra said:


> I do not think this have anything to do with data loss or corruption. Simply after listening music in ALAC format for a period it is becoming obvious anything in FLAC format sound more flat. How obvious is probably based on the gear. From players I'm using Winamp on my PC, my relative a Foobar fan. If both software use the same decoding algorithm it make sense.


 
  
 Please run a DBT and show your results otherwise (almost) nobody will give your opinion any credence. Foobar has a decent DBT tool plug-in and supports both formats, you could run a series of 15 tests in 10 minutes.


----------



## ralphp@optonline

ramachandra said:


> I'm an audiophile.....


 
  


hogger129 said:


> Compare the checksums and run a double blind test.  There is no difference.  ALAC=FLAC=WAV=AIFF=PCM.


 
  
  


nick_charles said:


> Please run a DBT and show your results otherwise (almost) nobody will give your opinion any credence. Foobar has a decent DBT tool, you could run a series of 15 tests in 10 minutes.


 
  
 Audiophiles NEVER, EVER bother with double blind tests since the results might cause their entire audio belief system to fall apart. On the other since ramachandra does feel that ALAC sounds superior to FLAC then he should use ALAC.


----------



## ramachandra

"Foobar has a decent DBT tool plug-in" Where?


----------



## nick_charles

ramachandra said:


> "Foobar has a decent DBT tool plug-in" Where?


 
  
 Select two tracks and right-click ...
  

  
  
 If not installed in your build the ABX comparator available from here http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx


----------



## ramachandra

"Audiophiles NEVER, EVER bother with double blind tests since the results might cause their entire audio belief system to fall apart."
  
 I'm sorry, but this sort of tests useless as is. Because sound live an imprint in the memory and more you listen to a music the stronger is the imprint about the details. Now you start clicking and guess what is happen, longer you do tests the less chance you have to distinguish between the two formats. Around 20th test probably i can not even tell the difference between a 1000kbps FLAC  and a 128kbps MP3 what is normally not a challenge. For example those people who test perfumes often smell coffee between tests, to "reset" their senses, or people drink red vine with food for the same reason. Audiophiles listening new capacitors in their gear for days, then change and evaluate to be sure etc.
 This is how our senses work, the easy thing just to think: Oh yeah, another audiofool shown up.


----------



## Head Injury

ramachandra said:


> "Audiophiles NEVER, EVER bother with double blind tests since the results might cause their entire audio belief system to fall apart."
> 
> I'm sorry, but this sort of tests useless as is. Because sound live an imprint in the memory and more you listen to a music the stronger is the imprint about the details. Now you start clicking and guess what is happen, longer you do tests the less chance you have to distinguish between the two formats. Around 20th test probably i can not even tell the difference between a 1000kbps FLAC  and a 128kbps MP3 what is normally not a challenge. For example those people who test perfumes often smell coffee between tests, to "reset" their senses, or people drink red vine with food for the same reason. Audiophiles listening new capacitors in their gear for days, then change and evaluate to be sure etc.
> This is how our senses work, the easy thing just to think: Oh yeah, another audiofool shown up.


 

 This isn't true, but even assuming it was you're allowed to listen to the samples as long as you want before you make a decision in an ABX test.


----------



## ramachandra

"This isn't true" This is where we disagree. I have better things to do than spend my day to prove myself how right I'm.


----------



## Poimandres

Roflmao. Someone is quite full of himself. Oh well live and let live! BTW the world isn't flat either.


----------



## ralphp@optonline

ramachandra said:


> "Audiophiles NEVER, EVER bother with double blind tests since the results might cause their entire audio belief system to fall apart."
> 
> I'm sorry, but this sort of tests useless as is. Because sound live an imprint in the memory and more you listen to a music the stronger is the imprint about the details. Now you start clicking and guess what is happen, longer you do tests the less chance you have to distinguish between the two formats. Around 20th test probably i can not even tell the difference between a 1000kbps FLAC  and a 128kbps MP3 what is normally not a challenge. For example those people who test perfumes often smell coffee between tests, to "reset" their senses, or people drink red vine with food for the same reason. Audiophiles listening new capacitors in their gear for days, then change and evaluate to be sure etc.
> This is how our senses work, the easy thing just to think: Oh yeah, another audiofool shown up.


 
  
  


head injury said:


> This isn't true, but even assuming it was you're allowed to listen to the samples as long as you want before you make a decision in an ABX test.


 
  
 Exactly - set up a double blind test that allows one to listen to each unknown "setting" (in this case you are comparing the sound of ALAC versus FLAC so each file type would be a "setting") for as one likes. Listen for 10 minutes, an hour or a day to each setting, whatever makes you happy. Or better yet have the durations of each setting be completely random - 10 minutes of A, an hour of B, 1/2 half of B, etc.
  
 See if you can hear the difference with any degree of accuracy. I would think that by your prior descriptions of just how obvious the difference is you have no problems with any of these tests.
  
 I'm not trying to reopen the DBT can of worms, I'm only trying to get you understand the "sound science" point of view - if the differences are so obvious why not prove it with well run double blind test? And if you don't want to submit to a double blind test, fine then be happy and listen to only ALAC but do NOT declare your completely subjective findings on a public forum and not expect to be challenged.


----------



## ramachandra

Ok, i spent half hour with testing. I do not use Foobar and it is sound different to my hears, i guess i can do better with Winamp.
  
 foo_abx 2.0.1 report
 foobar2000 v1.3.8
 2015-05-17 23:22:42
 File A: Adam Fielding - Pieces - 01 A Call To Action.flac
 SHA1: a83f093258d9f03a0baaca69fa1c4039ce9f2b16
 File B: Adam Fielding - Pieces - A Call To Action.m4a
 SHA1: d16257bdc0d15d8ef96fbe77b41bcf5bc6ad9edb
 Output:
 DS : Primary Sound Driver
 Crossfading: NO
 23:22:42 : Test started.
 23:26:48 : 01/01
 23:27:35 : 01/02
 23:28:44 : 02/03
 23:29:21 : 03/04
 23:30:02 : 04/05
 23:32:08 : 04/06
 23:32:55 : 05/07
 23:38:25 : 06/08
 23:39:29 : 06/09
 23:41:23 : 07/10
 23:42:57 : 08/11
 23:46:07 : 09/12
 23:47:04 : 10/13
 23:49:51 : 10/14
 23:51:00 : 11/15
 23:52:34 : 12/16
 23:52:34 : Test finished.
  ----------
 Total: 12/16
 Probability that you were guessing: 3.8%
  -- signature --
 980a46dd8d147689a52b6614a709649ac77a60d2


----------



## ralphp@optonline

ramachandra said:


> Ok, i spent half hour with testing. I do not use Foobar and it is sound different to my hears, i guess i can do better with Winamp.
> 
> foo_abx 2.0.1 report
> foobar2000 v1.3.8
> ...


 

 Impressive and thank you! Now it up to those with knowledge of the inter-workings of computer audio to figure out why ALAC sounds different from FLAC.


----------



## Poimandres

It doesn't. I would check settings in the player.


----------



## ramachandra

I think your source what is really need to be checked.


----------



## Head Injury

ramachandra, could you possibly upload the two files you used for the ABX test so we can take a look at them? The ones downloaded straight from the artist's Bandcamp null out completely, absolutely no difference.


----------



## ramachandra

No problem.
  
http://oriasmail.citromail.hu/dl/?tid=20202e5063ab0e2090da660dc15f18e
  
 Or you can get it from bandcamp for free here.


----------



## castleofargh

maybe don't let those files up for too long, as they technically make you an illegal music provider ^_^.
 but thanks for being a good sport and following up on people's requests to understand what you're talking about.


----------



## ramachandra

I had an idea. Basically it was mentioned above both formats are lossless audio, and convert one to another not result any decrease in quality. So i got a converter and i have converted few FLAC files to ALAC and tested, but not with ABX this time, and i got the same result. So it is probably have something to do with the decoding, like a different EQ setting for the formats. This little discovery certainly will save me few euros in the future.


----------



## castleofargh

ramachandra said:


> I had an idea. Basically it was mentioned above both formats are lossless audio, and convert one to another not result any decrease in quality. So i got a converter and i have converted few FLAC files to ALAC and tested, but not with ABX this time, and i got the same result. So it is probably have something to do with the decoding, like a different EQ setting for the formats. This little discovery certainly will save me few euros in the future.


 

 that can very much happen. even though it obviously shouldn't. but will depends on the player used, and maybe some settings. I've myself never experienced it with lossless formats, but with mp3 once and several times on portable devices trying to play ogg files. when the decoding sucks, the result can be different.
 but on a computer you always have some software that will be able to handle everything fine. maybe just try other players until you no longer get differences? or as you suggested, just convert to the lossless format that works for you.


----------



## kraken2109

Maybe the tracks weren't level matched?


----------



## ramachandra

I want to check that, but i do not know any program with support for both.
  
 Meanwhile i have tried Ubuntu studio without installing it or change any of the setting other than turn on the S/PDIF, and asked my relative to convert FLAC to ALAC on his computer and try different players, and i have asked one of my friend to do a comparison too on his PC. Same result.
 I think only the quality of the sound source+headphones are the key to experience the possible audible difference between the two formats.


----------



## nick_charles

ramachandra said:


> I think only the quality of the sound source+headphones are the key to experience the possible audible difference between the two formats.


 
  
 You are proceeding from the assumption that there should be a subtle difference that is hard to hear and only uncovered by "revealing" kit. The problem is that there _should_ not be a difference. The puzzlement is that there is a difference between two should be identical decoded PCM streams which hints at something screwy going on somewhere, not disputing your results at all.
  
 My take on it is that computers are less predictable than they should be, which I know is nonsense but I mean that some specific combination of factors (which we may not be fully aware of) will do strange stuff and _appear_ unpredictable. In the past my laptop would not find the wireless access point until I turned my wireless printer on, same with the Blu ray player and this happened many times..
  
 The other day my DVD drive stopped being recognized by my computer, I tried all the standard fixes  but it was just not seen by windows, or by the device manager at all. I disabled the drivers, updated the drivers, rebooted several times, used the manufacturer diagnostic toolbox - no drive detected. I booted into the bios setup did nothing but the DVD was now seen , I changed nothing came out and it has worked happily since, I have no explanation for this.


----------



## rjw915

The fact you say only Apple products will play ALAC is not true. All of the Hi-Res Players out now will play ALL formats. My iBasso and FiiO both play all formats (ALAC included). The Astell & Kern , Hifiman and PONY will also play all formats.


----------



## Roseval

As our playback chain is rather complex it is always possible that somewhere some DSP is going on.
 One option is to convert both the FLAC and the ALAC to WAV and do a binary comparison on the audio part (tags might be different).
 In general this type of test yield zero differences.
  
 If there are zero differences at bit level, we have the intriguing question how the same bits can sound different depending on the file format.
 The only explanation I can conjecture up is that decoding ALAC and FLAC yield different electronical noise patterns. Say one a bit more I/O, the other a bit more CPU or one a more steady processor activity and the other a more burst like pattern, etc.
 Then we have to assume that this noise creeps into the DAC en modulates the analog out in some way.
 Sounds a bit farfetched maybe but there are measurements demonstrating the difference between an isolated DAC and a non-isolated DAC e.g. by using a USB-isolator: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/GalvanicIsolation.htm
  
 So the bits might be identical, the way they are prepared differs.
 If this true, an interesting experiment would be to use a media player supporting memory playback.
 All I/O and all decoding are done on the entire track en stored in memory before playback starts.
 This should eliminate all differences due to the “preparation” of the bits.


----------



## old tech

rjw915 said:


> The fact you say only Apple products will play ALAC is not true. All of the Hi-Res Players out now will play ALL formats. My iBasso and FiiO both play all formats (ALAC included). The Astell & Kern , Hifiman and PONY will also play all formats.


 

 Correct, both my Naim NDX and Bluesound streamers play ALAC files.


----------



## watchnerd

ramachandra said:


> "This isn't true" This is where we disagree. I have better things to do than spend my day to prove myself how right I'm.


 
  
 Confirmation bias. Placebo effect.  Look them up.


----------



## castleofargh

watchnerd said:


> ramachandra said:
> 
> 
> > "This isn't true" This is where we disagree. I have better things to do than spend my day to prove myself how right I'm.
> ...


 

 we can't totally exclude the possibility of them sounding different in very poor situations. could be a problem with the computer resources, full of bugs/viruses/etc, maybe not enough RAM _राम_
  
_I compete for lamest pun 2016 and will now go hide, full of shame._


----------



## ramachandra

First when i experienced difference between formats was years ago with a modified SB Xtrememusic card. I was disappointed when the tracks in FLAC format had inferior dynamic compared what was on YouTube. In those days i speculated it has to do something with mixing or maybe the video based on a higher quality master file. Yet it was still strange because i read somewhere the YouTube videos stuck around 128kbps bitrate, and FLAC files go well beyond that. I have not done any more research on the subject in those days.
 Since my PC hardware completely changed, years gone, and i have used couple of different virus scanners. I show a tendency to no pay for them just keep them until the 30 days trials is up, then move to the next and after couple of months restore the whole system from a clean backup (not the windows system restore). Then start over again. I have a desktop built for gaming, it has 16GB RAM, AMD FX8350 Processor, etc. the operating system is Win7 64bit. The other two desktop PC i have mentioned above based on Intel CPUs and capable gaming rigs too. So the the computers performance and virus scanners is not not holding back, and we do not really run other than Skype in the background or let the PC flooded with rubbish.
 My audio chain during the test was SB Titanium HD => optical to coax adapter => parallel Wolfson WM8740 DIY DAC => Beyerdynamic DT990Pro headphones.
 The other two PC have modified SB Titanium cards and both have a modified Logitech Z5500. I have started threads about them, the information to reproduce the environment is easy if you wish.
 I'm giving this details because you do not know what kind of hardware was involved, neither i what other people are using, and we all can be right under the circumstances, still not benefit from the informations.


----------



## coli

If you notice audible differences from different lossless format and you are sure they are bit identical, then you need a  better, properly implemented DAC. Been there done that.


----------



## castleofargh

coli said:


> If you notice audible differences from different lossless format and you are sure they are bit identical, then you need a  better, properly implemented DAC. Been there done that.


 

 wouldn't the dac receive the same basic PCM format in any case? I would imagine a difference (if it exists) coming from badly done conversion when creating one of the files, or the player software/computer to create a particular problem when extracting one of the files. or our usual best seller, people mistaking 2 masters for the same song.
 but I don't see why the DAC would play any role in this?


----------



## coli

castleofargh said:


> wouldn't the dac receive the same basic PCM format in any case? I would imagine a difference (if it exists) coming from badly done conversion when creating one of the files, or the player software/computer to create a particular problem when extracting one of the files. or our usual best seller, people mistaking 2 masters for the same song.
> but I don't see why the DAC would play any role in this?


 
 Jitter differences. Some very expensive "audiophile" DAC can't handle them, while any cheap mass market DAC will.


----------



## ralphp@optonline

coli said:


> Jitter differences. Some very expensive "audiophile" DAC can't handle them, while any cheap mass market DAC will.


 

 On the other hand perhaps all DACs handle jitter just fine and since humans can't process sounds in the nano and pico second range it's only the audiophiles who claim that jitter is a problem. And with "problems" come "solutions" $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## ramachandra

We have done lot of this and that, been in here and there. From details we may learn something.

 You recommend better properly implemented DAC. OK, but how is that in logic with "any cheap mass market DAC"? For a millionaire a 1000$ DAC is cheap. If I'm thinking about the bottom price USB pendrive size i doubt it.
  
 The DIY DACs I have cost around 150€ the SB cards even less, of course it is only the price of the components, i do the soldering, installation.
  
  
 "perhaps all DACs handle jitter just fine" Just change the receiver chip's clock on a USB DAC to a 20$ ultra precision for example. You will be an audiophile that day if not already, just not aware of the definition. Otherwise i do not understand why anybody interested about a thread like this.


----------



## hogger129

I have never heard any difference between ALAC and FLAC.  My library is all FLAC and then I transcode to whatever lossy format I need for listening.


----------



## Peter Hyatt

I have a few ALAC downloads here that are wonderful...listening with Mojo and Beyerdynamic T1 or T8ie.   I am using iTunes for the downloads.  
  
 There is another alternative:  ALAC HD for a few dollars more.  
  
 I cannot find any info on the difference between ALAC and ALAC HD...
  
 Is there a significant difference?  Thanks!  
  
 Link:    http://live.brucespringsteen.net/live-music/0,14781/Bruce-Springsteen---The-E-Street-Band-mp3-flac-download-9-7-2016-Citizens-Bank-Park-Philadelphia--PA.html
  
  
 The choices are given in the drop down menu and pricing....is ALAC HD better than ALAC?


----------



## Roseval

*Both FLAC and ALAC files sound identical to the original source (44.1 kHz, 16 bit stereo). The hi-fi Lossless files are much larger files and will take longer to download. These files are for audiophiles who want better sound quality. For those interested in higher-than-CD-quality sound, we also offer HD formats in 24 bit resolution. These files are FLAC-HD and ALAC-HD, which are made from the master 24 bit digital recordings of each show. The sample rate may vary depending on the source (for example the 2014 High Hopes tour was recorded at 24 bit / 48 KHz). Archive releases are 24 bit / 192 kHz whenever possible. Note that 192 kHz HD files will not transfer onto iOS devices.*
  
 https://brucehelp.nugs.net/support/solutions/articles/6000045328-what-s-the-difference-between-mp3-lossless-and-hd-formats-


----------



## Peter Hyatt

I had read that but my question is a bit more practical:
  
 do head-fi hear a difference between ALAC and ALAC HD?


----------



## RRod

ALAC and FLAC both readily support HD formats, so it would seem "ALAC-HD" and "FLAC-HD" are just lingo to mean "containing HD content instead of Redbook". As far as audibility, if the masters are the same I sure can't hear any difference in my listening environment. If the masters are different then, well, the masters are different.


----------



## gregorio

roseval said:


> *For those interested in higher-than-CD-quality sound ...*


 
  
 Tough, because in practise there is nothing higher-than-CD-quality! Of course, that doesn't stop marketing depts implying that there is and instructing engineering depts to create products which fulfil this spurious demand.
  


peter hyatt said:


> I had read that but my question is a bit more practical:
> 
> do head-fi hear a difference between ALAC and ALAC HD?


 
  
 That's an impossible question to answer. It's trivially easy to hear a significant difference where there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. So adding the letters "HD" to the name is more than enough for many audiophiles to perceive a difference. Any perceived differences vanish with a double blind test though, so the practical answer to your question would be "no".
  
 G


----------



## Roseval

gregorio said:


> Tough, because in practise there is nothing higher-than-CD-quality!


 
  
 You mean when Sony and Philips finally came to an agreement late 70’s about what bit depth and sample rate to be used for the audio CD, this compromise is the definitive answer to all quality issues?
 Any progress impossible?
  
 To the OP
 Of course you should experiment a little and try some Hires on your system.
 Personally I won’t pay almost the double for a Hires  recording.


----------



## gregorio

roseval said:


> You mean when Sony and Philips finally came to an agreement late 70’s about what bit depth and sample rate to be used for the audio CD, this compromise is the definitive answer to all quality issues? Any progress impossible?


 
  
 How exactly was CD audio a "compromise"?
  
 At the time, progress was of course possible. Clocking wasn't hugely accurate, anti-alias and reconstruction filters weren't great, etc. However that progress has since been made, so as far as a consumer stereo distribution format is concerned; audible progress of quality is indeed impossible, as 16bit/44.1 already exceeds the limitations of human hearing. That's not the definitive answer to all quality issues of course, there are audible quality issues in other areas, transducers for example.
  
 G


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

gregorio said:


> How exactly was CD audio a "compromise"?


 
  
 CD audio is not the same as the source recording... There is compression, downsampling, and probably other processing involved. It is by definition a compromise. You can debate until the cows come home as to whether or not that compromise is audible, but it is a compromise nonetheless.


----------



## castleofargh

grumpyoldguy said:


> gregorio said:
> 
> 
> > How exactly was CD audio a "compromise"?
> ...


 

 everything is a compromise. at any given step in the production or playback, more could have been done. what's relevant is where the final compression stands relatively to everything else and the actual data that is music and needs to be kept. I agree with the fact you're stating, but I'm so very afraid how it could be misunderstood by the "moaaar is bettererer" people who look at the audio chain 1 element at a time and miss how pointless some apparent improvements are once you follow the signal from A to Z.
  
 anyway back on topic, flac and alac are both lossless, if they end up making an audible difference, what was used to convert the files or what is used to replay them is responsible. not the format itself.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

castleofargh said:


> what's relevant is where the final compression stands relatively to everything else and the actual data that is music and needs to be kept.


 
  
 Agreed. Transparency is always the goal.


----------



## gregorio

grumpyoldguy said:


> [1] CD audio is not the same as the source recording... [2] There is compression, [3] downsampling, and probably other processing involved. [4] It is by definition a compromise. [5] You can debate until the cows come home as to whether or not that compromise is audible, but it is a compromise nonetheless.


 
  
 1. Yes it is, or if it's not, that's by choice not because it's a limitation of 16/44.1.
  
 2. Yes, usually there is but again, that's purely by choice. There's no limitation, requirement or necessity for 16/44.1 to be any more or any less compressed than any HD format. The dynamic range of 16/44.1 exceeds the limitations of human hearing. Any compromise, if it can be called a compromise, is to accommodate the limitations of human hearing not the limitations of 16/44.1!
  
 3. That's irrelevant, downsampling is audibly transparent and most commercial recordings have numerous up and down sampling processes.
  
 4. Again, how is it a compromise of 16/44.1? There are many compromises when recording, editing, mixing and mastering audio, 16/44.1 as the distribution format is not one of them!
  
 5. Sure, you can debate anything, whether the moon is made of cheese for example but if we're going to have a _sensible_ debate then no, it's not audible, unless of course it's been deliberately applied to specifically be audible (as is the case with audio compression for example).
  
 G


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes it is, or if it's not, that's by choice not because it's a limitation of 16/44.1.
> 
> 2. Yes, usually there is but again, that's purely by choice. There's no limitation, requirement or necessity for 16/44.1 to be any more or any less compressed than any HD format. The dynamic range of 16/44.1 exceeds the limitations of human hearing. Any compromise, if it can be called a compromise, is to accommodate the limitations of human hearing not the limitations of 16/44.1!
> 
> ...




Man... My post was like two sentences, and somehow it got a 5 paragraph response?

16/44.1 is inherently a compromise. The source was recorded at 24/192 for example. So 16/44.1 is a compromise to save space. 

And downsampling isn't necessarily transparent... Audibly sure, but spectrally the digital filtering before the decimate stage can cause an increased noise floor and unwanted spurs.


----------



## RRod

grumpyoldguy said:


> Man... My post was like two sentences, and somehow it got a 5 paragraph response?
> 
> 16/44.1 is inherently a compromise. The source was recorded at 24/192 for example. So 16/44.1 is a compromise to save space.
> 
> And downsampling isn't necessarily transparent... Audibly sure, but spectrally the digital filtering before the decimate stage can cause an increased noise floor and unwanted spurs.


 
  
 I guess my view on it is that once CDs are completely dead we can just forget 16/44.1 as a format and have a dual universe of studio masters for those who want lossless copies and lossy versions made directly from those that actual real people will listen to with no audible issues. At least for my own part, I like to hammer the audible transparency of 16/44.1 as a warning sign in front of the slippery slope of "more is better", which leads to weird things like DSD512. I'll add that it would be nice if we were charged for audibility and not spectrograms; these $30 tags for hi-res albums are ridiculous.


----------



## sonitus mirus

rrod said:


> I guess my view on it is that once CDs are completely dead we can just forget 16/44.1 as a format and have a dual universe of studio masters for those who want lossless copies and lossy versions made directly from those that actual real people will listen to with no audible issues. At least for my own part, I like to hammer the audible transparency of 16/44.1 as a warning sign in front of the slippery slope of "more is better", which leads to weird things like DSD512. I'll add that it would be nice if we were charged for audibility and not spectrograms; these $30 tags for hi-res albums are ridiculous.


 
  
 I think, and hope, that reasonable folks will be safe.  The greedy, short-sighted conglomerates will isolate their distribution to a few major players and abandon any small players in the market.  This is what happened to video.  In the end, the major labels will only be available to purchase on sites like Amazon, Apple Store, Google Music, and a few other online giants.  Very few people would purchase a $30 album; and with such a small but powerful number of sellers, the giants will control pricing.  If multiple versions of the same music are distributed and priced at varying rates, if the cheaper version of the files are truly inferior in sound quality, the discrepancy between the better quality sounding files will not cost that much more.  Think SD quality video rentals compared to HD quality rentals.  If the HD version of Star Wars cost $30 to rent compared to the $2 SD version, the consumers would almost never purchase the HD versions.  The music industry will face a similar fate.  They might want to sell their products at an outrageous markup, but they will foolishly limit their influence by making short term deals with major distributors while ignoring any opportunities to allow smaller sellers to compete.  In the end, we might have a "SD" quality and an "HD" quality, but they should be reasonably priced.  Maybe we will get lucky and the "SD" versions will actually be the same, audibly, or at least very close to the same for most of us.  Kinda like lossy streaming services now.  I feel like I am getting away with something, as the sound quality is damn good with nearly all of the enormous library of music that is available.


----------



## gregorio

grumpyoldguy said:


> [1] 16/44.1 is inherently a compromise. The source was recorded at 24/192 for example. So 16/44.1 is a compromise to save space.
> 
> [2] And downsampling isn't necessarily transparent... Audibly sure, but spectrally the digital filtering before the decimate stage can cause an increased noise floor and unwanted spurs.


 
 1. Even the most dynamic of commercial recordings virtually never exceed a 60dB dynamic range, that's the equivalent of 10bits. So with a 16bit distribution format the last 6 or so LSBs are just noise or digital silence. A 24bit release therefore just has another 8bits worth of noise (or digital silence). Providing those additional 8 LSBs of random noise (or digital silence) can be removed transparently, which has been easily achievable for well over a decade, how can loosing them in any way be described as a compromise? And as for loosing a band of inaudible ultrasonic frequencies is concerned, how is that a compromise? On the contrary, it's actually a potential fidelity improvement as it removes the likelihood of any downstream IMD compromising the sound quality! And finally, a 192kHz sampling rate is itself already compromise compared to lower sample rates. 192k is not higher quality because it's more data, it's lower quality!
  
 2. Of course 24/192 is spectrally different, there's another 8bits of noise plus a far larger band of inaudible, ultrasonic freqs in there. And yes, you do increase the digital noise floor; from roughly 14bits below the recording's noise floor, to only 6bits below it! And sure, it's maybe possible to foul up a downsampling/dithering process to the point that it's not audibly transparent but that would take fairly severe incompetence and exceptionally poor quality tools, for which there's no excuse as transparency was achievable many years ago even with free tools!
  


sonitus mirus said:


> If multiple versions of the same music are distributed and priced at varying rates, if the cheaper version of the files are truly inferior in sound quality, the discrepancy between the better quality sounding files will not cost that much more.  Think SD quality video rentals compared to HD quality rentals.


 
  
 The cheaper version (to buy) is commonly the more expensive version to actually make! Typically, we record and mix the highest quality we can, given the constraints of budget and time. That mix is then tweaked during mastering to produce a high quality master. To produce a lower quality master then requires additional steps to be taken, costing more time and therefore money. It's usually not feasible or often even possible to take a low quality mix (or master) and turn it into a high quality master but the other way around is of course far easier.
  
 Also, we have to be careful about what we mean when we say "an inferior version". A version which would sound "truly inferior" when listening with good equipment in our critical listening environment may actually be "truly superior" in a different situation. For example, I'm currently mastering an album for a talented guitarist, which was recorded at 24/96, even though spectral analysis shows there's virtually nothing above about 20kHz; an acoustic guitar produces very little above 20k to start with, it looks like standard studio mics were used which roll-off at about 20k anyway and the dynamic range of an acoustic guitar is relatively small. As part of my mastering I'm applying fairly heavy compression because the artist will distribute on YouTube and wants the recordings to sound good on a variety of playback equipment including laptops, tablets and even mobile phones. Although this compression compromises the SQ of the recording when listening with decent equipment/environments, the artist feels this compromise to be relatively minor compared to the fact that the recording would be un-listenable in those other situations which are important to him. So why record, mix and master in a (so called) HD format to start with, especially as there's virtually nothing there which could make even a theoretical difference, let alone an audible one? It's simply as a future proofing measure. The artist may enter a relationship with a label or his circumstances may change in some other way which may require a HD release version. A task which will now be trivial but would probably have required him to spend weeks completely re-recording the whole album if he hadn't recorded and mixed it at 24/96 to start with. This HD version would sound significantly better to the critical listener than the current version, purely due to the fact that I could significantly dial down the amount of compression. If it were up to me and if/when such a HD version were required, I would release this HD version at 16/44.1 because there would be absolutely no audible difference between this version being distributed in a HD format or at 16/44.1. Unfortunately, the world of music marketing doesn't currently work that way and it's virtually certain a HD version would have to be distributed in a HD format.
  
 Lastly, while analogies with visual images can often be very handy, they can also quite often be entirely misleading. SD and HD video in this case is an example of the latter. Even the higher resolution limits of HD video is well within the ability of the human eye and additionally the move from SD to HD involved a fundamental change to the replay technology (bigger plasma or LED screens rather than CRT), all this added up to a very obvious and noticeable difference between SD and HD. With audio, even the resolution limits of (so called) SD audio is beyond the ability of the human ear and additionally, there has been no fundamental change in the replay technology (speakers are essentially the same tech as before even SD digital audio).
  
 G


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

gregorio said:


> 1. Even the most dynamic of commercial recordings virtually never exceed a 60dB dynamic range, that's the equivalent of 10bits. So with a 16bit distribution format the last 6 or so LSBs are just noise or digital silence. A 24bit release therefore just has another 8bits worth of noise (or digital silence). Providing those additional 8 LSBs of random noise (or digital silence) can be removed transparently, which has been easily achievable for well over a decade, how can loosing them in any way be described as a compromise? And as for loosing a band of inaudible ultrasonic frequencies is concerned, how is that a compromise? On the contrary, it's actually a potential fidelity improvement as it removes the likelihood of any downstream IMD compromising the sound quality! And finally, a 192kHz sampling rate is itself already compromise compared to lower sample rates. 192k is not higher quality because it's more data, it's lower quality!
> 
> 2. Of course 24/192 is spectrally different, there's another 8bits of noise plus a far larger band of inaudible, ultrasonic freqs in there. And yes, you do increase the digital noise floor; from roughly 14bits below the recording's noise floor, to only 6bits below it! And sure, it's maybe possible to foul up a downsampling/dithering process to the point that it's not audibly transparent but that would take fairly severe incompetence and exceptionally poor quality tools, for which there's no excuse as transparency was achievable many years ago even with free tools!
> 
> ...




I get a headache everytime I read one of your posts. 

Not only are you missing the point of my statement entirely, you're clearly just arguing for argument's sake. Enjoy.


----------



## sonitus mirus

gregorio said:


> The cheaper version (to buy) is commonly the more expensive version to actually make! Typically, we record and mix the highest quality we can, given the constraints of budget and time. That mix is then tweaked during mastering to produce a high quality master. To produce a lower quality master then requires additional steps to be taken, costing more time and therefore money. It's usually not feasible or often even possible to take a low quality mix (or master) and turn it into a high quality master but the other way around is of course far easier.
> 
> Also, we have to be careful about what we mean when we say "an inferior version". A version which would sound "truly inferior" when listening with good equipment in our critical listening environment may actually be "truly superior" in a different situation. For example, I'm currently mastering an album for a talented guitarist, which was recorded at 24/96, even though spectral analysis shows there's virtually nothing above about 20kHz; an acoustic guitar produces very little above 20k to start with, it looks like standard studio mics were used which roll-off at about 20k anyway and the dynamic range of an acoustic guitar is relatively small. As part of my mastering I'm applying fairly heavy compression because the artist will distribute on YouTube and wants the recordings to sound good on a variety of playback equipment including laptops, tablets and even mobile phones. Although this compression compromises the SQ of the recording when listening with decent equipment/environments, the artist feels this compromise to be relatively minor compared to the fact that the recording would be un-listenable in those other situations which are important to him. So why record, mix and master in a (so called) HD format to start with, especially as there's virtually nothing there which could make even a theoretical difference, let alone an audible one? It's simply as a future proofing measure. The artist may enter a relationship with a label or his circumstances may change in some other way which may require a HD release version. A task which will now be trivial but would probably have required him to spend weeks completely re-recording the whole album if he hadn't recorded and mixed it at 24/96 to start with. This HD version would sound significantly better to the critical listener than the current version, purely due to the fact that I could significantly dial down the amount of compression. If it were up to me and if/when such a HD version were required, I would release this HD version at 16/44.1 because there would be absolutely no audible difference between this version being distributed in a HD format or at 16/44.1. Unfortunately, the world of music marketing doesn't currently work that way and it's virtually certain a HD version would have to be distributed in a HD format.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Good stuff, as usual.  With regards to "SD" vs "HD", I was mostly referring to the current market trends where consumer options for mainstream music are either MP3 or AAC from mega stores such as Amazon, Apple, or Google vs. the heavily marked up HD files.  If I could get a FLAC/ALAC version at CD quality for all of my music and at a similar price that I can currently buy a new CD, I'd be happy.  Mostly the lossy versions are audibly transparent, but not in every situation for every listener on every system.  For personal confidence, if I am going to purchase music, I'd want it to be available in a format with no potential compromises in sound quality.  Currently I purchase CDs, used or new, when I need to fill in gaps that a streaming music service does not support.  It would be great if lossless version were made available to purchase for entire catalogs.  It was only the foolishness of the major record labels that had for so long been able to control distribution that they failed to see any benefit in changing their methods.  The only way they allow online sales of lossless quality files is to make them available at outrageous prices in ludicrous formats that nobody has shown to be sonically superior to Red Book in any meaningful way.  I'm fine with 24/96 or any format that is established as the norm for online distribution, but I'm not going to pay $30 for an online digital version if the CD is available to buy at Amazon for $7.


----------



## gregorio

sonitus mirus said:


> For personal confidence, if I am going to purchase music, I'd want it to be available in a format with no potential compromises in sound quality.


 
  
 Me too. What annoys me is that this format should be 16/44.1 or a FLAC/ALAC equivalent. In practise though it's usually SACD/DSD or 192/96/24, purely for marketing purposes. Consumers presumably won't cough up for a huge mark-up between two different versions both at 16/44.1 but apparently will if one of the versions is only available in a different (higher data) format. While some mark up is justified for a higher quality version (be it 16/44.1 or higher), the consumer is to some degree effectively being scammed, very effectively actually because so many never even realise they are being scammed!
  
 I sometimes wonder where we would be if the industry had focused on audio quality rather than on audio formats. Maybe one day it will come back round but for now the push is towards ever more ludicrous formats, formats which if anything degrade audio quality rather than enhance it.
  
 G


----------



## Hi-Fi'er

Truth about Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S_DI99wd8&feature=youtu.be


----------



## wnmnkh

hi-fi'er said:


> Truth about Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S_DI99wd8&feature=youtu.be


 
  
 Yes. No doubt Dr. Waldrep is one of the sane voices regarding 24bit stuffs. You may also want to visit his blog site too: www.realhd-audio.com


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

hi-fi'er said:


> Truth about Audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5S_DI99wd8&feature=youtu.be


 
  
 That was an overall disappointing video, though there were some good takeaways from it.
  
 He spent the entire time arguing that making 24/192 versions of recordings that were recorded at far lower fidelity is pointless. Who the heck on this planet would argue that (besides Neil Young, apparently... who is biased since he needs to make sales)? As he eloquently put... You can't use a CD as a source to generate content that sounds better than a CD.
  
 There is a far more involved, and quite frankly better and more important, discussion to be had on the value of recordings that captured at 24/192 in the first place vs. 44.1/16 for example. The speaker certainly seems to think there is value in that, though he himself readily admits he doesn't know why and "hopes" that the brain can use some of that extra content. He in fact does his own recordings with higher resolution (I watched the video last night and forgot the exact number, 96/24 maybe?)... 
  
 As for myself, I think I have the same opinion as the speaker.... I want the exact acoustics in the studio or live performance to captured and reproduced, regardless of whether or not the content is audible... If a guitar produces some high frequency content beyond 20KHz for example, I want that in the recording and played back by my hardware despite the fact that I can't hear that content.


----------



## sonitus mirus

grumpyoldguy said:


> As for myself, I think I have the same opinion as the speaker.... I want the exact acoustics in the studio or live performance to captured and reproduced, regardless of whether or not the content is audible... If a guitar produces some high frequency content beyond 20KHz for example, I want that in the recording and played back by my hardware despite the fact that I can't hear that content.


 
  
 I tend to agree with your agreement.  However, with higher recorded frequencies, I believe that it is possible to introduce distortion (IMD?) that might negatively impact what is being heard.  So, what may not have been an issue listening to something live might not work correctly through speakers that have to struggle to play back the wider frequency range when all instruments/voices are combined into a single audio signal.   A solution might be to simply use speakers that cannot reproduce ultrasound.  Some speaker setups using 24/192 files could potentially be making things worse for the listener.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

sonitus mirus said:


> I tend to agree with your agreement.  However, with higher recorded frequencies, I believe that it is possible to introduce distortion (IMD?) that might negatively impact what is being heard.  So, what may not have been an issue listening to something live might not work correctly through speakers that have to struggle to play back the wider frequency range when all instruments/voices are combined into a single audio signal.   A solution might be to simply use speakers that cannot reproduce ultrasound.  Some speaker setups using 24/192 files could potentially be making things worse for the listener.


 
  
 This is the greater discussion that I wish the speaker had gone into. It's an interesting topic for sure.


----------



## spruce music

grumpyoldguy said:


> This is the greater discussion that I wish the speaker had gone into. It's an interesting topic for sure.




On another forum last year there was circulating a 96 khz file with 30 khz and 33 khz recorded at a high level. So you could test for the 3 khz imd result. Mostly with headphones but also with speakers no one could hear it until they pushed the amps too far. Seems transducers were less of a problem than what is usually assumed.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

spruce music said:


> On another forum last year there was circulating a 96 khz file with 30 khz and 33 khz recorded at a high level. So you could test for the 3 khz imd result. Mostly with headphones but also with speakers no one could hear it until they pushed the amps too far. Seems transducers were less of a problem than what is usually assumed.


 
  
 With 30KHz and 33KHz, IMD spurs would show up at 27KHZ and 36KHz. I wouldn't be able hear that far up in the spectrum, let alone for spurs that are 60+dB down. 
  
 I suspect what likely happened is that people pushed the amps so far up it caused some periodic distortions at the maxima and minima of the tones, causing audible harmonics which is what they heard. 
  
 Of course what I'm saying is all speculation, I have no way of going back in time and measuring it.


----------



## spruce music

grumpyoldguy said:


> With 30KHz and 33KHz, IMD spurs would show up at 27KHZ and 36KHz. I wouldn't be able hear that far up in the spectrum, let alone for spurs that are 60+dB down.
> 
> I suspect what likely happened is that people pushed the amps so far up it caused some periodic distortions at the maxima and minima of the tones, causing audible harmonics which is what they heard.
> 
> Of course what I'm saying is all speculation, I have no way of going back in time and measuring it.




The idea was to look for the difference tone at 3 khz. That is where imd will usually be audible.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

spruce music said:


> The idea was to look for the difference tone at 3 khz. That is where imd will usually be audible.


 
  
 Good point. I'm used to talking about intermod in terms of 3rd order products. Those are typically closest to our signal of interest and usually loudest. 
  
 The 2nd order difference tone will be the quietest usually.


----------



## pinnahertz

The discuss of IMD as a by-product of bandwidth and system nonlinearity really only scratches the surface.  The correlation between system bandwidth and IMD is spongy at best, as there are other factors to consider.
  
 A good reference paper that starts to get at the meat of the issue is "Spectral Contamination Measurement" by Deane Jensen and Gary Sokolich, AES 85th Convention, November 1988 (available at AES.org).  The went beyond two-tone IMD and created a several excitation "patterns", like energy at 120Hz intervals from 10kHz to 25kHz with a measurement window from 30Hz to 8kHz.  Their work started to get to the roof of why amplifiers with lower gain-bandwidth product sound worse than ones with higher gain-bandwidth product, etc.  They tested digital systems, analog tape recorders, all-pass filters, amps, and more.  I'd read this one before theorizing too much about ultrasonics and IMD.


----------



## spruce music

pinnahertz said:


> The discuss of IMD as a by-product of bandwidth and system nonlinearity really only scratches the surface.  The correlation between system bandwidth and IMD is spongy at best, as there are other factors to consider.
> 
> A good reference paper that starts to get at the meat of the issue is "Spectral Contamination Measurement" by Deane Jensen and Gary Sokolich, AES 85th Convention, November 1988 (available at AES.org).  The went beyond two-tone IMD and created a several excitation "patterns", like energy at 120Hz intervals from 10kHz to 25kHz with a measurement window from 30Hz to 8kHz.  Their work started to get to the roof of why amplifiers with lower gain-bandwidth product sound worse than ones with higher gain-bandwidth product, etc.  They tested digital systems, analog tape recorders, all-pass filters, amps, and more.  I'd read this one before theorizing too much about ultrasonics and IMD.


 

 I read that paper around 5 years ago.  Tried this test and didn't find it revealing anything new.  Maybe modern gear has such high gain bandwidth op-amps it isn't a problem.  I found spectral contamination to show me nothing more useful than two tone IMD.  I also have used a pair or three or 4 swept tones.  Equal spacing.  Like 500 hz or 1khz difference.  Run the sweep starting with 1khz and 2 khz with both sweeping to 20 khz.  Again I don't recall any of the few pieces of gear tested to show much different than just using 19 and 20 khz.


----------



## pinnahertz

spruce music said:


> I read that paper around 5 years ago.  Tried this test and didn't find it revealing anything new.  Maybe modern gear has such high gain bandwidth op-amps it isn't a problem.  I found spectral contamination to show me nothing more useful than two tone IMD.  I also have used a pair or three or 4 swept tones.  Equal spacing.  Like 500 hz or 1khz difference.  Run the sweep starting with 1khz and 2 khz with both sweeping to 20 khz.  Again I don't recall any of the few pieces of gear tested to show much different than just using 19 and 20 khz.


 
 What did you use to generate the 125-tone test signal?  Did you apply 10kHz HPF before the DUT and the 8kHz LPF after the DUT? What devices did you test?


----------



## spruce music

pinnahertz said:


> What did you use to generate the 125-tone test signal?  Did you apply 10kHz HPF before the DUT and the 8kHz LPF after the DUT? What devices did you test?


 

 I tested DACs, preamps all at line level. Didn't provoke me to continue with things like power amps.
  
 Now I don't remember it being a 125 tone test signal.  I seem to remember something like 12 or 15 tones.
  
 I also used wideband noise, with different sections filtered out of the noise to see if any IMD artefacts showed up in the filtered area ( usually filtered out an octave at a time).  I used recordings of things with significant output in the 20-40 khz range (jangling keys, cymbals, and such) looking for artefacts at lower frequencies.  I digitally generated a few squarewaves with different base frequencies not at even multiples to see what showed up when these were mixed. 
  
 While the fact it isn't a commonly done measurement would not mean it is of no value, I would think you would see something like this used more often were it to show results that correlate with audible differences regular measurements miss.  And that doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## pinnahertz

spruce music said:


> I tested DACs, preamps all at line level. Didn't provoke me to continue with things like power amps.
> 
> Now I don't remember it being a 125 tone test signal.  I seem to remember something like 12 or 15 tones.
> 
> ...


 
 Ok, well, I'm not sure what you did exactly, but the test in the paper utilized 125 tones 1kHz apart.  They used a 10kHz HPF to clean up the generator and keep anything out of the test range, then used test bandwidth of 30Hz to 8kHz, again with an 8kHz LPF to keep the test signal out of the analyzer and just look at the resulting products.  They had over 100dB of dynamic range, and that was with 1988 hardware.  Nothing else in your description even comes close to this.  You did some reasonable, but pretty conventional tests.  If you try to use recordings as the test signal you run into issues with reference, and analyzer bandwidth vs amplitude response time.  Transients and high resolution FFTs don't get along well.  The problem with using noise would be, again, low resolution.  
  
 There is one company marketing an analyzer system that uses a methodology related to SCT, but their system is intended for production testing and is so completely out of reach of the small lab (much less hobbyist) that we just won't see it.  The problem I see is SCT is hard to do properly, and while it presents good data, it's new and unfamiliar, even after 28 years.  Of course, the guy that could have pushed it along is no longer with us (Jensen), so that's probably part of the reason it stalled.  That doesn't mean it's not valid, and perhaps even one of the big keys to audible differences in devices that measure similarly with conventional methods.  The brass ring would be correlation with audibility and sound quality.  
  
 I recognize replicating the test in the paper is energetic.  I've tried myself, still missing a few key components to pull it off.  Just generating the test signal is non-trivial, then you really need a few good analog filters (they built theirs with Jensen's 990 opamps...I have a few around yet).  We really need an REW-level software generator, and somebody to put together the analog filters.  The FFT part we have.  
  
 I doubt anyone would see the value or point of spectral contamination testing without the full rig, though.


----------



## spruce music

pinnahertz said:


> Ok, well, I'm not sure what you did exactly, but the test in the paper utilized 125 tones 1kHz apart.  They used a 10kHz HPF to clean up the generator and keep anything out of the test range, then used test bandwidth of 30Hz to 8kHz, again with an 8kHz LPF to keep the test signal out of the analyzer and just look at the resulting products.  They had over 100dB of dynamic range, and that was with 1988 hardware.  Nothing else in your description even comes close to this.  You did some reasonable, but pretty conventional tests.  If you try to use recordings as the test signal you run into issues with reference, and analyzer bandwidth vs amplitude response time.  Transients and high resolution FFTs don't get along well.  The problem with using noise would be, again, low resolution.
> 
> There is one company marketing an analyzer system that uses a methodology related to SCT, but their system is intended for production testing and is so completely out of reach of the small lab (much less hobbyist) that we just won't see it.  The problem I see is SCT is hard to do properly, and while it presents good data, it's new and unfamiliar, even after 28 years.  Of course, the guy that could have pushed it along is no longer with us (Jensen), so that's probably part of the reason it stalled.  That doesn't mean it's not valid, and perhaps even one of the big keys to audible differences in devices that measure similarly with conventional methods.  The brass ring would be correlation with audibility and sound quality.
> 
> ...


 

 Okay, bad memory.  I read some version of this.  At one time it was attached to an article about Jensen and Sokolich.  Assuming that memory isn't bad too.
  
 http://www.tmr-audio.com/pdf/jon_risch_biwiring.pdf
  
 The latter part of this loosely describes the version in the Jensen and Sokolich article.
  
 So what frequency did this other spectral contamination signal start with?  Obviously it extends to at least 125 khz.  I am not so sure I see the direct connection with audio frequencies if the test signal is ultrasonic.  So there must be some idea(s) missing in how I am viewing this.  The near ultrasonic I get, but why so far beyond 20 khz?


----------



## pinnahertz

spruce music said:


> Okay, bad memory.  I read some version of this.  At one time it was attached to an article about Jensen and Sokolich.  Assuming that memory isn't bad too.
> 
> http://www.tmr-audio.com/pdf/jon_risch_biwiring.pdf
> 
> ...


 
 (from the paper)_ "One of our favorite excitation patterns is made up of  energy at 120Hz intervals from 10kHz t0 25kHz with the analysis window between 30Hz and 8kHz.  Another pattern utilizes excitation at supersonic frequencies to show resulting  cross modulation products in the audio range.  Another interesting possibility  could use energy covering the entire audio range except for  an empty " window"  in the mid-frequency range."_
  
 However, using the proper filters is very important in extending the dynamic range of the test. The block diagram tells the story.
  
 However, since nothing was standardized either on the excitation pattern side or the analysis side, I guess you could use a multitude of different types of excitation patterns.  The important part seems to be using many frequencies that push up into the higher end where the potential for nonlinearity may be present, and extending the dynamic range of the analysis system.


----------



## spruce music

pinnahertz said:


> (from the paper)_ "One of our favorite excitation patterns is made up of  energy at 120Hz intervals from 10kHz t0 25kHz with the analysis window between 30Hz and 8kHz.  Another pattern utilizes excitation at supersonic frequencies to show resulting  cross modulation products in the audio range.  Another interesting possibility  could use energy covering the entire audio range except for  an empty " window"  in the mid-frequency range."_
> 
> However, using the proper filters is very important in extending the dynamic range of the test. The block diagram tells the story.
> 
> However, since nothing was standardized either on the excitation pattern side or the analysis side, I guess you could use a multitude of different types of excitation patterns.  The important part seems to be using many frequencies that push up into the higher end where the potential for nonlinearity may be present, and extending the dynamic range of the analysis system.


 

 I used a variant of the second one described.  Left octaves blank each time. Went up to 20 khz.  Didn't do the filtering in the analog end.  I would digitally filter the recorded signal, which allowed me to listen to the blank octave, allowed me to amplify the blank octave.  I didn't uncover much that was interesting.  So I understand this is not exactly according to the block diagram.


----------



## Maddog510

If an Apple Lossless track has a higher bitrate like over 1000kbps, does it take more time to fully decompress?


----------



## watchnerd

maddog510 said:


> If an Apple Lossless track has a higher bitrate like over 1000kbps, does it take more time to fully decompress?


 
  
 Compared to what?


----------



## Maddog510

watchnerd said:


> Compared to what?


 Well I'm assuming that a larger ALAC file with a higher bitrate takes a little more time to decompress than an ALAC file that has a bitrate in the 800kbps range.


----------



## watchnerd

maddog510 said:


> Well I'm assuming that a larger ALAC file with a higher bitrate takes a little more time to decompress than an ALAC file that has a bitrate in the 800kbps range.


 
  
 In theory, sure.  In practice, it's such a trivial amount of data for any modern processor, there's not much point in measuring it.
  
 Are you worried about some kind of problem?


----------



## Maddog510

watchnerd said:


> In theory, sure.  In practice, it's such a trivial amount of data for any modern processor, there's not much point in measuring it.
> 
> Are you worried about some kind of problem?


 No I'm not worried about anything. Just curiousity. I wish there was a way to tell if the tracks are fully decompressed or not.


----------



## pinnahertz

maddog510 said:


> No I'm not worried about anything. Just curiousity. I wish there was a way to tell if the tracks are fully decompressed or not.


 
 If they weren't decompressed they would sound like noise, if you could get the stream to a DAC at all.  You can't partially decompress a stream and expect to get good audio,  it's pretty much an all/nothing deal. A compressed bitstream is completely different than an uncompressed one.


----------



## Maddog510

pinnahertz said:


> If they weren't decompressed they would sound like noise, if you could get the stream to a DAC at all.  You can't partially decompress a stream and expect to get good audio,  it's pretty much an all/nothing deal. A compressed bitstream is completely different than an uncompressed one.


 OK well there's no noise so that would mean full decompression is pretty much instant am I correct?


----------



## pinnahertz

maddog510 said:


> OK well there's no noise so that would mean full decompression is pretty much instant am I correct?


 
 The fact that you're getting good audio means it was decompressed.  There's no "fully" since there's also no "partly" when it comes to decompression. It's either decompressed, or not.
  
 No processing is technically "instant", though "instant" is also relative to perception of time.  I'm not sure why there's any concern for how long it takes a stream to decompress, it comes out fully baked, done, ready to hear.  If decoding latency were 1ms or 500ms, would it matter? You'd never know either way, you have no reference for when decompression starts.  
  
 Decompression time becomes an issue when audio and picture have to sync, but picture pretty much always takes longer, and there aren't any consumer-level applications for lossless video codecs.  Picture with sound applications almost always have a means of reestablishing sync.


----------



## roulduke

There are many threads about downloading CD's to ITunes as ALAC files, but is an album downloaded from a site like HD Tracks going to sound noticeably better? I have bought my favorite albums from LP, to MFSL LP's, to CD's, to MFSL CD's, and now I am looking at these hi bit count albums that cost $18. Is it worth it?


----------



## RRod

roulduke said:


> There are many threads about downloading CD's to ITunes as ALAC files, but is an album downloaded from a site like HD Tracks going to sound noticeably better? I have bought my favorite albums from LP, to MFSL LP's, to CD's, to MFSL CD's, and now I am looking at these hi bit count albums that cost $18. Is it worth it?


 
  
 It might be if the mixing/mastering on the HD versions were ALWAYS better, which simply isn't a given.


----------



## roulduke

Well, HD Tracks claims that all of the albums offered are better just because of the high bit rates. For an older album from 1969, like Jethro Tull's "Benefit", I wonder how it compares to today's recordings and if if it can be noticeably better. I own around 2000 CD's, so, when I am faced with yet another format, I feel weary.


----------



## old tech

roulduke said:


> Well, HD Tracks claims that all of the albums offered are better just because of the high bit rates. For an older album from 1969, like Jethro Tull's "Benefit", I wonder how it compares to today's recordings and if if it can be noticeably better. I own around 2000 CD's, so, when I am faced with yet another format, I feel weary.


 
 That is perhaps the biggest lie with hi res. Only more recent recordings are at least 24/96 all the way through to the final product.  The older albums like Jethro Tull are sourced from analog tape which is not hi res.  So unless it is a better sounding remaster it is impossible for these older albums to sound better purely because it is now in a hi res bucket.  Fortunately though, the quality of the recording and mastering have a far greater effect on sound quality than whether it was recorded in hi res, 16/44 or analog tape.


----------



## pinnahertz

roulduke said:


> Well, HD Tracks claims that all of the albums offered are better just because of the high bit rates.


 
 They're lying.


roulduke said:


> For an older album from 1969, like Jethro Tull's "Benefit", I wonder how it compares to today's recordings and if if it can be noticeably better.


 
 Great record, not great quality. Technically inferior in every way to the stuff that could be recorded today (but isn't because of some really poor artistic choices). So, in some ways, Benefit might sound better than some of today's stuff, not so much in others. It is what it is: great music from 1969.


roulduke said:


> I own around 2000 CD's, so, when I am faced with yet another format, I feel weary.


 
 Meh. I'm sick of re-purchasing the same stuff. The bump from vinyl to CD made sense, mostly, because there was an unmistakable difference, so worth it. The difference here is clearly mistakable. I'll wait for the Virtual Reality version with 3D audio where Ian Anderson appears on my coffee table and asks me what I want to hear. I say, "Yes, Ian, would you and the band please play "Sossity; You're a Woman" without the vinyl inner groove distortion?"   Ian nods, and says, "By all means!"  And he does, then shakes my hand and vanishes.
  
 That format I'd buy.  24/96 of Benefit? Not a chance.


----------

