Competition: Apple Lossless Vs. WAV - Which one is better?

[cheez]

Runawayprisoner, please help. Which one is better? Apple lossless audio or WAV 16bit 48khz encode from CD?

I checked the file size for each after encoding the 4 min length audio from CD.

m4a = 29.9 MB
WAV = 45.6 MB


It says Apple lossless but why is it much smaller than the WAV? Which one provides better sound? I'm after the SQ, don't care about the size. Please assist!


:$

 

[BD2003]

Is this a trick question?

 

[cheez]

^ No it's not a trick question. I need assurance and clarification.

thanks,

 

[zokudu]

Apple Lossless is better. WAV files are generally not compressed. That's why the files smaller.

 

[Anteaus]

Any reason you're not going with MP3? I personally wouldn't go with a proprietary format but that's me.

 

[mmntech]

WAV isn't a lossless format, it's uncompressed. It stores audio in a linear PCM format. When you rip a CD to WAV, it's an exact, bit for bit copy of the source.

Compressed formats work by throwing away information that is useless, such as audio frequencies outside the realm of hearing. Apple Lossess uses linear prediction, where the decoder "guesses" future values based on previous ones. It's a bit like how a television "guesses" green, as green isn't encoded into the picture to save bandwidth. It figures out what should be there based on the information it has. You get an image that looks identical to an RBG signal without the G actually being there. What you end up with is an audio copy that sounds identical to the source despite being smaller. Human hearing is incapable of telling the difference. Since lossless files are smaller, they make way more sense than using uncompressed WAV.

WAV can be "compressed" to, but it uses a different method: resampling. Say I have a pile of random change on my desk. Typical compression throws out useless information while re-sampling throws information out indiscriminately. You get less with both but re-sampling results in significantly diminished audio quality.

 

[MrX8503]

You want either .wav or .aiff

If you're on a windows machine, you would probably want .wav

 

[vbuggy]

Well, Apple Lossless sounds "warmer" and "slower", because your pile of crud is choking on the bits and [redacted] over the sound to mask the fact.

...Jeez, what do you want us to reasonably say? WAV is cumbersome and has no benefits since it can't embed metadata. AIFF can embed metadata but what you'll hear on something which is capable of decompressing ALAC in everyday use without issues (i.e. pretty much everything made after 2006) there will be no sonic difference. It's called Lossless for a reason.

Anyone who comes in with '...processing overhead... ...decompression artifacts... yada yada' etc is your typical BSdiophile. There's plenty of non-anecdotal audio data capture evidence out there - and hey, here's a radical idea, you can even do it yourself (as long as you know what the hell you're doing of course, which is never a certainty in Apple-land) - to confirm this is the case.

No profanity in the tech forums, please
-ViRGE

 

[BD2003]

^ No it's not a trick question. I need assurance and clarification.

thanks,

Simple answer then: They'll sound exactly the same, alac is better since the file is smaller and it supports metadata.

 

[cheez]

Thanks all for your inputs regarding audio file types. This is good stuff that I didn't know about. Any more inputs all welcome.

Any reason you're not going with MP3? I personally wouldn't go with a proprietary format but that's me.

For better sound quality such as higher depth and clean crisp sound. Quite a few MP3's for downloads have distortion too which I hate. I use MP3 when the audio I get is not available on CDs or other lossless sources.

 

[Anteaus]

For better sound quality such as higher depth and clean crisp sound. Quite a few MP3's for downloads have distortion too which I hate. I use MP3 when the audio I get is not available on CDs or other lossless sources.

I can understand that. I find MP3 to be a good archival format, but only if encoded at higher bit rates. The encoder also matters. It took some time trying different encoders before settling on one that I was happy with.

The problem is that most encoders will color the sound a bit depending on the settings, so you should try to not let that create format bias.

Good luck.

 

[rivan]

Lossy Compressed formats work by throwing away information that is useless, such as audio frequencies outside the realm of hearing.

FTFY.

I can't really comment about the technical details of how any of them works, but any LOSSLESS compression will yield the same audio result. I would be surprised if ALAC actually guesses about anything. If it did, it wouldn't be lossless.

Lossless compression is more or less like incorporating LZW, ZIP or RAR into the file format - it doesn't change the uncompressed data in any way. Lossy compression, on the other hand, like JPG and MP3, DO alter the final uncompressed data from it's original state. How much they alter is highly variable based on the settings used. Higher compression = smaller files = greater change from original state. Lower compression = larger files = less change from original state.

Here's a screenshot similar to yours that started with an uncompressed PNG on my desktop.

First, a barely-compressed 48K JPG - 100 on photoshop's quality slider (which amusingly is LARGER than the lossless-compressed, 34K PNG):

Next, 50 on the slider, a 15k JPG:

And finally a minimum quality, 0 setting, 7.6K JPG:

Lossy compression isn't evil - overdone or poorly configured lossy compression is.

To the OP - as many others have said, ALAC is better than WAV; it should deliver the same audio fidelity as WAV but offers benefits over WAV. Lossless compression similar to FLAC but with better device support along with all the metadata support.

 

[Oyeve]

Apple Lossless is better. WAV files are generally not compressed. That's why the files smaller.

Wtf? No. Wav is the exact same as source. I have no idea wtf you are talking about.

 

[JackBurton]

Wtf? No. Wav is the exact same as source. I have no idea wtf you are talking about.

Easy man. I don't think he's saying Apple Lossless is better sound quality wise. He's saying it is better due to the other benefits it offers over WAV, like smaller file size and the ability to tag your songs all while retaining the same sound quality as WAV.

 

[runawayprisoner]

WAV is the original source, so of course it always has the best quality.

However, if you ask me about the difference in quality between WAV and lossless (like ALAC and FLAC), I would have to say... you're spouting BS if you say you can hear the difference. Think of ALAC and FLAC as ZIP and RAR for audio. They just compress the original data. The decoding process "may" lose information, but in most cases, it won't lose anything.

In fact, depending on the original recording, even 320kbps vs FLAC won't yield much of a difference unless the encoder you used is a very bad one.

As an aside, I sincerely doubt you could hear the difference even if there were any (I know I can't), so I'd say go Apple Lossless for those busy songs, but MP3 for any simpler songs. That'll make your life easier.

I think you'll realize at some point that your gears are more important than your source. Provided your source is already decent enough, that is.

 

[vbuggy]

Thanks all for your inputs regarding audio file types. This is good stuff that I didn't know about. Any more inputs all welcome.




For better sound quality such as higher depth and clean crisp sound. Quite a few MP3's for downloads have distortion too which I hate. I use MP3 when the audio I get is not available on CDs or other lossless sources.

The other major reason to go with Lossless for your primary library is that you can transcode without any degredation. Want to generate a new slightly lower-bitrate M4A library? Change up to MP3's? No problemo. Transcode from ALAC to FLAC or AIFF? No problems either.

Storage is cheap. Go Lossless for your entire music library to start with, then you keep your options without needing to re-rip.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Don't rip CDs at 48khz. You're resampling the audio and losing quality.

CDs are 44.1khz. Don't change anything you don't have to.

 

[zokudu]

Wtf? No. Wav is the exact same as source. I have no idea wtf you are talking about.

I was talking about the merits of the format. ALAC has all the data the same as WAV but allows Metadata and can work on Apple devices. There is no reason to use WAV files nowadays except as a stopgap before you transcode it. Just convert it to ALAC, FLAC, or WMA Lossless and save the space.

 

[scootermaster]

A one followed by a zero

1010

Ten

10

0xA

X

Here's the world's shortest primer on information theory:

What did you think when you saw each of those six character strings? My guess is you probably thought "ten" for each of them.

If we say "characters" are "bits", then the last one (or two, really) convey the information most succinctly. With the proper decoding device -- in this case, your brain -- you can convey THE SAME information the originally took 24 "bits" in only 1 bit.

That is compression.

In this case, it's lossless, since THE SAME information was conveyed.

Now, that's not exactly how lossless audio works. It does, in point of fact, use prediction (when it can) and run-length encoding (when it can't) to convey the SAME information as the original.

NEXT UP: How digital audio files sound worse/better played from SSDs than from platter-based HDs!

 

[vbuggy]

NEXT UP: How digital audio files sound worse/better played from SSDs than from platter-based HDs!

Oh it's out there, believe me.

 

[scootermaster]

Oh it's out there, believe me.

I know. That's why I said it; I've seen it.

I thought the "LOSSLESS ISN'T THE SAME AS PCM!" argument was the fucking stupidest thing I'd ever seen on the Internet until I saw that.

Maybe the whole "Ph.D. in Computer Science" thing gives me a leg up here, but Information Theory really isn't that complicated. But it's something that seemingly baffles most audiophiles. It's sad.

 

[vbuggy]

I know. That's why I said it; I've seen it.

I thought the "LOSSLESS ISN'T THE SAME AS PCM!" argument was the fucking stupidest thing I'd ever seen on the Internet until I saw that.

Maybe the whole "Ph.D. in Computer Science" thing gives me a leg up here, but Information Theory really isn't that complicated. But it's something that seemingly baffles most audiophiles. It's sad.

The interesting thing about the Internet is that it allows congregations of the same-minded to strengthen their delusions as much as - or maybe more than - it allows people to discuss different ideas.

Take e.g. a core audio belief of burn-in. A relatively simple test involving two headphones and burning one in for say 100 hours - a time period where a host of audiophiles on Head-Fi, 6Moons and other BS-afflicted sites will report major improvements in the sound - then comparing both in a blind test will fairly conclusively put to bed whether burn-in is a factor.

Same with audio equipment and 'burn-in'.

No-one 'prominent' has published the results in 10 years of Head-Fi existence though. Best we've had is a carefully-worded article by Tyll Hertsens on his site muddying the waters further.

 

[cheez]

Thanks everybody including runawayprisoner.

What do you guys mean by tagging songs? You mean like editing the information in the file such as Artist name, creation date, and other info about the song??

And what does metadata do for me? I don't know which is why I'm asking. :$

Don't rip CDs at 48khz. You're resampling the audio and losing quality.

CDs are 44.1khz. Don't change anything you don't have to.

Is this really true??? Should I leave the setting to default then? Like Auto?


Please respond.

thanks a cruise ship,


EDIT: I just looked the metadata up...

"Metadata is frequently defined as "data about data". Though at first it may seem like an almost circular definition, it accurately captures the fact that data does not exist in isolation, but rather is part of an information exchange “context”. Information typically captured in metadata includes a description of data content and structure, as well as the activities and processes for which the data is used. A better understanding of the metadata can help all participants maximize the benefits derived from the direct use of the data. We rely on metadata in our daily lives, without even thinking about it! Take for instance, drivers' licenses. The business context for the use of a driver’s license is typically to provide proof that an individual has been authorized by an official entity, to operate certain types of motor vehicles, given possible constraints such as the use of prescription eye glasses. There are expectations for the information that should be contained in a driver's license, such as a recent photo of the driver, his/her name, date of birth, validation period for the license, name of issuing entity, etc. This combination of the expected data attributes and purpose of use is the metadata for the driver's license. The standardization of driver's license metadata facilitates all processes that use the license as a means to assert one's legal right to drive."

So it's outside of sound qualities, just the information about the file, or data. Learning something new!

 

[Eug]

I was talking about the merits of the format. ALAC has all the data the same as WAV but allows Metadata and can work on Apple devices. There is no reason to use WAV files nowadays except as a stopgap before you transcode it. Just convert it to ALAC, FLAC, or WMA Lossless and save the space.

In the old days I would have used WAV, because nothing supported ALAC. If I were doing lossless now I'd use ALAC.

However, what I actually do is buy the CDs, and encode to 192 Kbps AAC.

BSdiophile

There's plenty of non-anecdotal audio data capture evidence out there - and hey, here's a radical idea, you can even do it yourself (as long as you know what the hell you're doing of course, which is never a certainty in Apple-land) - to confirm this is the case.

Not sure what the Apple-ness has to do with anything but...

I did this test myself, comparing CD to MP3 to AAC. I found with my hardware and my encoders/decoders, I couldn't consistently tell the difference between iTunes Fraunhofer MP3 true stereo (not joint stereo) at 224 Kbps, vs. CD. I didn't use AAC because not that much stuff supported it at the time. (See above.) However, just for a cushion, I encoded it at 256 Kbps, because it wasn't much bigger, and all my devices supported 256 Kbps MP3. Now AAC support is almost ubiquitous, so I use 192 Kbps AAC, as IMO the quality is the same as 224-256 Kbps iTunes MP3.

 

[Cogman]

I know. That's why I said it; I've seen it.

I thought the "LOSSLESS ISN'T THE SAME AS PCM!" argument was the fucking stupidest thing I'd ever seen on the Internet until I saw that.

Maybe the whole "Ph.D. in Computer Science" thing gives me a leg up here, but Information Theory really isn't that complicated. But it's something that seemingly baffles most audiophiles. It's sad.

As a lowly BS Computer Engineer, I agree, it isn't that complicated. I've seen TONS of things come from audiophiles and their ilk that have caused a little part of me to die.

"That HDMI cable has to be gold plated for a richer sound!"
"Vacuum tubes produce a much richer sound than their digital counterparts."
"Records are much better than any digital storage method"

999 times out of 1000 they are completely full of crap.