Just posting an Apple Discussions that might help our fellow Apple Users:
Posts: 32
From: Alaska
Registered: Aug 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen a number of postings declaring that Apple's lossless format is identical in quality (but of course smaller in size) compared with WAV.
However, I haven't seen any links to any official statements by Apple or trusted third-party sources on this issue.
I'm not saying that such official data/proof doesn't exist. I just don't know where to find it. Doing a Google search doesn't turn up too much -- just lots more people saying that which is noted above (but without any proof).
Anybody have any links they would care to share...?
Voodoo PC Windows Vista
|
|
Posts: 40,281
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
|
| |
Posts: 32
From: Alaska
Registered: Aug 25, 2008
|
|
| Re: Apple's lossless and WAV
Posted: Sep 4, 2009 9:30 PM  in response to: Chris CA
|
| |
Thanks for the link, thanks for the info!
Voodoo PC Windows Vista
|
|
Posts: 878
From: London,UK
Registered: Jul 10, 2001
|
|
| Re: Apple's lossless and WAV
Posted: Sep 8, 2009 6:53 AM in response to: highland99
|
| |
Now that you have seen that lossless means exactly that. You maybe interested in how to use Apple Lossless in Windows Media Player and Microsoft Media Center.
See my tips on this page http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/WMP/FileFormat.htm look in the AAC and ALAC section.
I have my entire music library in Apple Lossless and shared between iTunes, WMP, and Media Center.
Apple Lossless is the only lossless format that enables this and still provides access for both iTunes and WMP to the meta-tags (unlike FLAC, WAV, or AIFF).
Intel Mac mini Windows XP Pro Running Media Center 2005!
|
|
Posts: 32
From: Alaska
Registered: Aug 25, 2008
|
|
| Re: Apple's lossless and WAV
Posted: Sep 11, 2009 6:27 PM in response to: John Lockwood
|
| |
After spending the past 7-10 days comparing Apple's lossless with WAV, I may be crazy, but I'm still somewhat convinced that there is a difference in the sound quality.
To my ears, WAV sounds richer and fuller.
(I'm using an iPod Classic with Sennheiser HD 650 headphones: http://www.sennheiserusa.com/private_headphones_audiophile-headphones_009969)
I read somewhere -- but of course cannot remember exactly where -- that some audiophiles still believe that WAV sounds better (when compared with Apple's lossless). Is there any technical data to support this...?
Message was edited by: highland99
Voodoo PC Windows Vista
|
|
Posts: 34
From: Earth
Registered: Sep 10, 2009
|
|
| Re: Apple's lossless and WAV
Posted: Sep 11, 2009 7:30 PM in response to: highland99
|
| |
Could also depend on sample quality. Are we comparing a 48K and a 44.1K encoding, or does lossless use 48K as well?
I'd say screw it and encode your junkz in 24bit/32bit Wave and be done with it (if you are synthing your own stuff).
PC Windows XP Pro
|
|
Posts: 4,339
From: New Jersey, USA
Registered: Aug 12, 2006
|
|
| Re: Apple's lossless and WAV
Posted: Sep 11, 2009 7:57 PM in response to: DJ Omega Rush
|
| |
DJ Omega Rush wrote:
does lossless use 48K as well?
"Lossless" means a lossless representation of the thing you are encoding, so if you are ripping from an audio CD the answer is 44.1
I'd say screw it and encode your junkz in 24bit/32bit Wave and be done with it (if you are synthing your own stuff).
If you are creating an original studio recording you can use 24 or 32. But if you are ripping from CD, it is only in 16 bit sampling, and encoding above that is a waste.
Windows XP and 30GB iPod
|
|
Posts: 32
From: Alaska
Registered: Aug 25, 2008
|
|
| Re: Apple's lossless and WAV
Posted: Sep 11, 2009 10:53 PM in response to: ed2345
|
| |
I am indeed ripping everything directly from CDs. So these CDs are really no more than 16 bit...?
A lot of what I am listening to is classical; I believe (but I'm not entirely sure) some of these CDs are above the 16 bit range.
So I'm just trying to clarify: if it is a CD that is above the 16 bit range, is it recommended to go with the WAV format...?
Or, are all CDs limited to 16 bit...? (I could have sworn that I saw some CDs that were above this bit range...)
Thanks!
Voodoo PC Windows Vista
|
|
Posts: 4,339
From: New Jersey, USA
Registered: Aug 12, 2006
|
|
| Re: Apple's lossless and WAV
Posted: Sep 12, 2009 4:50 AM in response to: highland99
|
| |
highland99 wrote:
I am indeed ripping everything directly from CDs. So these CDs are really no more than 16 bit...?
Standard audio CDs use 16 bit encoding.
A lot of what I am listening to is classical; I believe (but I'm not entirely sure) some of these CDs are above the 16 bit range.
There are other CD formats in the world, such as SACD, that use different formats. Is that what you have? They are quite uncommon.
So I'm just trying to clarify: if it is a CD that is above the 16 bit range, is it recommended to go with the WAV format...?
Standard audio CD encoding (16 bit, 44.1kHz sampling, 2 channel stereo) takes about 10 MB per minute of music. You can stick the CD into iTunes, and when it registers, see what you have. For example, if a 40 minute CD has around 400 MB, that is the standard.
iTunes WAV encoding is limited to 16 bits, so if you have something else you will need a stronger ripping tool.
Or, are all CDs limited to 16 bit...? (I could have sworn that I saw some CDs that were above this bit range...)
SACD? See above. Higher bit rates (and higher sample rates) are used in sutdio master recordings, but not on the CDs.
Thanks!
Hope this helps.
|
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment