WAV or Apple Lossless Encoder?

oh my thanks for reminding me of Pop Pop. I've had it playing much of the day and just ripped it using Apple Lossless, glad to hear some of you don't hear huge differences. I can handle re ripping everything to Lossless.........
Yes that CD is great fun - really enjoyed it, lots of detail over a very modest system - the used Vandersteen 1c's I got here on Audiogon and a new NAD 326 integrated amp and NAD 545 cd player....fabulous for the money!

Now if I can just get my new Squeezebox to work, of course, Murphy's Law for me means that our wireless router isn't accepting it and we're waiting on the Logitech folks to call with recommendations.....
but in the meantime, there's the NAD and Pop Pop!

oh my thanks for reminding me of Pop Pop. I've had it playing much of the day and just ripped it using Apple Lossless, glad to hear some of you don't hear huge differences. I can handle re ripping everything to Lossless.........

PopPop's a classic, and a whole lot of fun to boot. Hey, don't get me wrong, I would not say (and don't think I did say) I heard "huge" differences. The differences are immediate and apparent on my main system, but the degree of difference, no matter how immediate, would not have me scurrying to re-rip my library.

I just had a friend over yesterday morning who I'd told about the files and said had to hear for himself. To make it more interesting I put a cover over the iTunes display so he could not read the file ID (which identifies the EAC file in this case). I played the two files for him and his obervations were that the two files definitely sounded different stating a clear preference for what was the EAC file. He described the one that was EAC>lossless as having a more extended bass and more clarity to vocals and instruments. He did not mention soundstaging, but his love of music, though very discriminating, has not yet been infected by Audiophilia Neurosis. He also did not go away wanting to re-rip his entire library (which is currently in AL). Dtc also sent me his files yesterday but I did not discover their arrival until after my friend had left, and I'd disassembled my system for an upgrade. Dtc - I'll load them to my music server and give them a listen and report what I hear. I'm sending my MW TP out for a modification of the power supply so when I get it back I'll take a listen to the two files you sent.

Hi all…

I’m a bit tired and not feeling well, but this thread has got my attention and I thought to mention some things which seemingly have been passed over somehow and I’m unable to let go of just now.

Indeed there are several immediately notable variables taking place here.

DTC corrected a couple terminology and format ones regarding the diffs from reduced file size and compression visa vi FLAC.. ALAC.. and WAV/WAVE. None of which are compressed… albeit some are indeed reduced in size.

It seems to me the more noteable issue is the ignorance or dismissal of the amount of jitter introduced by the CD or DVD rom in the personal confuser being used, right off. Not to mention the varying types or brands and models, from machine to machine, system to system. Their ages, use, ripping speeds, cpu’s, bus speed, etc.

Also error correction vs. jitter. Naturally they aren’t the same thing. A spec or scratch on a disc vs adherence to a specific rotating speed and reading accuracy.

Only just recently did Jax2 mention the use of any player aside from iTunes… and which version of iTunes… BTW, is/was being used?

All of this is far from anything resembling scientific experimentation or analysis. In such instances there must be controls. Identicals. Consistencies.

I’m surely not taking anyone to task about that bit either, just being as objective as I’m able to in an effort to make some sense of the controversy here.

Finding results that vary from one members trials to another therefore isn’t too eye opening IMO. What I do find remarkable is any fact supporting similar processes being followed and yielding similar results…. Given all the aforementioned variables just noted, and indeed there are others I have not pointed out. Such as burning these files back to CD… what CDR’s were used? At what speed? Did everyone use the same CD ROM or combo drive? Transport? DAC? Audio rig?

Of course not. Far from scientific… but it’s Fun… just not definitive.

Another thought to throw into this is the ‘plug in’ aspect. ALAC (m4a & m4p) FILES CAN BE PLAYED BACK USING PLUG IN CODECS other than the proprietary ones afforded the user by iTunes, Quicktime, MC, FUBAR & EAC. Albeit iTunes doesn’t allow for such a thing. Other media players do however.

If you would care to improve upon the quick time engine’s handling of the ALAC files (m4a) try the Direct Show filter, or base ‘plug in’, available as a free online downloaded item.

There’s a bunch of algorithms out there, just as there are several mp3 plug in’s like LAME & MONKEY’s, etc. Although the latter are based on the Frahauffer codec design, they aren’t exactly the same. The AAC file type adds yet another layer to the compression making it an mp4… vs. mp3.

Also what driver are you all using? ASIO? Which one? BTW were all the interfaces as well, identical? Coax? USB?

Merely opting for different aSIO drivers can and does change/improve the sound.

I’ve been playing with, trying out, changing file formats, pc’s, codecs, media players, sound cards, DACs, hard disc formatting, pc cooling, isolation, power line filtering/conditioning, differing ROM drives, ripping speeds, etc., etc., etc., for about 8 + years now. Just recently did I bite the bullet and decide to go HDD digitally based with my source, for 95% of intended playback.

Here’s what I’ve found out so far…. Everything matters.

Change something… something changes.

Changed the media player, the sound improved or just changed.

Same thing with all else. DACs, interfaces, media players, plu ins, and yeah… file types. And depending upon the ‘file type’ and/or player, (predominately) things could be well improved right then and there!

Even in a one box player rig, the CDR does make a diff when compiling a CD.

Any file format one wishes to use can be optimized for playback in one’s system…. Yeah… even mp3. media Center offers the LAME & FLAC CODEC as standard equipment for ripping. It also uses error correction but MC calls it secure ripping instead. FUBAR & WINAMP allow plug ins too.

If WAV/WAVE sound best to you but you want the art work and ability to transfer them to another computer’s database, and keep tag info… try out ey the WAVpack codec… it incorporates tagging info while retaining the uncompressed WAV file type as the media audio format.

The attraction of itunes is great for sure as it is way easy to use and sounds pretty good straight off… but it’s no end all be all in media players. If you’ve tried a few then you know. If not, then you should try a few other players.

Another consideration in choosing a file format is versatility. Cross platform playback. You might go with a different platform or OS down the road perhaps.

Size however, is becoming less and less the problem…. And tagging info is mighty important too. Art work or no art work.

Another item is bit rot. Leaving bits on a magnetic disc for extended periods allows for decay of the file, and consequent loss of some resolution, or gasp! Loss of the file due to it’s corruption. Just copying the folders to another partition on the drive or to another hard drive periodically, will overcome that pitfall. Annually works for me.Sooner aint’ a bad idea neither.

What accounts for why we hear or don’t hear a diff from one file tuype to another is IMO a moot point. Especially given the degree of diff one might hear.

The more important aspect I feel is which file type is best for you, and what can be done to optimize it for playback in your system… now… and down the road.

Waffling or stressing over a few MB or a 5% gain in resolution, is silly when you get right down to it.

Think more so about the new & upcoming formats of higher res file types… I suspect these are going to be inherently larger anyways. We all will want to accommodate them, right? Sure.

I’m personally happy with ripping CDs via either iTunes, MC, or EAC. The latter ones I like a bit more for the resolution and detail in the end product. Between AIF, WAV & FLAC, I’ll go with FLAC OVERALL. Rip to WAV with iTunes and convert if needs be.

AS the J River MEDIA CENTER sounds best to me I seldom if ever use iTunes any more.

There again however is another issue… conversion. Just how jitter free and error free is the conversion process and the converted file? Was it cached and checked for accuracy at any time in the process?

Beats me. Don’t care really. I try not to convert anything anyways.

If you rip CDs right out of the packet, error correction isn’t a major deal… jitter is. Funny how as degrading as jitter can be in audio playback it’s ignored with the software rippers, & ROM drive technologies, themselves.

I say use which ever file type you like or need, depending upon your converter/hardware, and improve upon the sound tangibly, tactily, with better devices, cabling, etc., etc..I doubt seriously anyone here who is using whatever file type is missing out on much, given the looks of their rigs… or at least from what I’ve seen thus far.

At least think more about the DAC - CODEC – or player being used, than the file type (lossy or lossless) itself. You’ll be better served. IMHO

I think I'm on the same page as you, Jim, though perhaps it's not coming off that way(?). I'm decidedly right brain, though, and am not prone to any desire for conducting such a highly objective scientific investigation in the whys and wherefores. My attitude is and always has been, see what works best for you, in your system, your room, your music, your ears. Nothing else really matters and if you make something else matter, like someone else's opinion for instance, you are wasting your time IMO. I just offered my take on an interesting comparison where the results surprised me. For the record I am not withholding any information on purpose, nor am I suggesting I have conducted a scientific or objective analasys here. I just did it for fun and interest and thought others may enjoy the stimulus of the conversation and doing their own test. As always, YMMV. I'd completely agree that niggling over minor gains is not my personal cup-o-joe, though I have good friends who are far more interested in doing just that and I respect that if it's what floats your boat. Anyway, if I've omitted any info that might interest you or others just let me know and I'm happy to share it. The version of iTunes I used is 8.0.2 I also interface via SlimServer (latest version) to deliver files to my MW Transporter (latest firmware). Peter, on the other hand, was using Empirical's Pace Car and l2S-modded Northstar DAC I believe. Peter has a far more scientific mind than I do - he's an hydro engineer and I'm a photographer / graphic designer...go figure. I don't know that he would have motivations of sharing that were any different than mine - sharing some interesting results with others who might want to try something similar, but he's far more prone to investigate such details in depth than I am. When I heard what was involved with what he did to rip the file that sounded better, it became even more silly to me as I cannot think of anyone who'd want to go through the process of inserting all the meta-data manually on an entire library of music for the kind of gains we're talking about here. It did interest me to hear, regardless, for reasons, as you point out in your post, that everything matters and could make a difference. It does encourage experimenting for yourself with the resources you have at hand. When anyone asks me what format to use I always tell them to try ripping the files several different ways and comparing them on the system(s) they intend to listen on and see if it makes any difference. The caveat to the test is that if you upgrade your system (especially your digital front-end), or your software changes, you may hear differences you did not hear before. Generically I'd recommend Apple Lossless, and that's what most of my library is ripped in.

Jax2 ... cool.

I'd not want tmy input to come off as adversarial at all... just thru reading the entire post on this thread I felt little true experimentation was going on... and for just what, exactly?

I sure do agree too that trying a few paths, regardless the endeavor. Like with tubes or SS... Panel or cone speakers, analog vs. digital... etc.

I've gone thru so many paths digitally speaking in conjuction with the personal confuser my hairs are turning grey. I don't mind it turning color, just so long as it doesn't turn loose.

It gets interesting making the changes here and there for a while or until it gets frustrating foraging thru the minutia for maximum gains. I'm quite happy for those who pursue them and more so for those who share their trials. For myself where ever I can manage a greater gain or bang for the buck, that's where I'll tend to hover... but ever remain open to another way to do things if it's for the better... not simply for different... and then even that degree of improvement is debateable.

It's funny that the idea of "What's the best..." always winds up being decided by the prompter of the query and not by those attendant to it... or the numbers involved.

I sometimes wonder why we don't ask, "Why did you choose a ???" instead, and look more at the philosophy behind the choice than the item itself as being greater or lessor a thing... or as the ONLY way to proceed to better sound.