Agreed, I prefer quality over quantity.

Posted by Teresa on August 5, 2012 at 18:37:17

In Reply to: RE: am I crazy? posted by michaelhigh on August 5, 2012 at 08:09:28:

I recently converted my 24/88.2, 24/96. 24/176.4 and 24/192 music files from Apple Lossless to AIFF using XLD as it sounds better in every comparison I made.

Many say "Lossless is Lossless" and "bits are bits" however unlike uncompressed music files, lossless compressed music files have to be uncompressed in real time while the music is playing and this is said to effect the sound. Losslessly compressed music files are bit by bit identical and can be converted back to an uncompressed format (WAV, AIFF) and sound like the original music file again with no losses.

I first compared formats using my Reference Recordings HRx 24/176k data DVDs and MA Recordings 24 bit data DVDs, which are both in the WAV format. I used XLD to convert them to AIFF and Apple Lossless as I find XLD sounds better in file conversion that does iTunes.

To me WAV sounds the best on my Mac Mini, which seems illogical to me since it is a Microsoft/IBM format played, but I accept what I hear. It is also possible that file conversion is not a perfect science.

Anyway WAV has an ease of presentation and ambiance that sounds very lifelike. AIFF was very close. Both WAV and AIFF have a larger soundstage and a lifelike attack of high percussion instruments that was somewhat subdued with Apple Lossless although it sounded excellent otherwise and one would not know what was missing if Apple Lossless was not played right after a WAV or AIFF music file. I selected AIFF since WAV doesn't support album artwork on my Mac Mini.

If you decide to convert 24 bit Apple Lossless files to WAV or AIFF don't use iTunes as it will convert them to 16 bit even though it retains the correct sampling frequency. Instead use XLD as it will retain the original 24 bit rate and sampling frequency.

I had to keep my 24/44.1kHz and 24/48kHz music files I made for iPod use in Apple Lossless, as AIFF and WAV on my iPod are limited to 16/44.1kHz and the iPod only does 24/48 with Apple Lossless. I eventually will have a portable digital player that does DSD and PCM up to 24/192kHz, until then I am stuck with 24/48 for iPod use.

A 24/96 AIFF or WAV music is 4608 kbps or 14.4 times larger than 320 kbps music files under discussion here. However memory is getting pretty cheap, so no reason to suffer clearly audible sonic losses by compression, in my opinon.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - am I crazy? - bullethead 07:56:04 08/05/12 (22)

RE: am I crazy? - Ozzy 02:49:35 08/06/12 (2)

RE: am I crazy? - Jack G 06:03:22 08/06/12 (1)

yes - bullethead 17:54:37 08/06/12 (0)

quality vs. quantity - jefe 19:56:09 08/05/12 (1)

RE: quality vs. quantity - maximum kahuna 21:36:25 08/05/12 (0)

No.......... - Todd Krieger 16:55:28 08/05/12 (2)

Say what ?? - AbeCollins 19:10:44 08/05/12 (1)

RE: Say what ?? - Todd Krieger 19:55:34 08/05/12 (0)

RE: am I crazy? - Goober58 11:27:15 08/05/12 (0)

Yes - Jack G 08:32:47 08/05/12 (6)

"MP3s unacceptable" - mls-stl 10:06:15 08/05/12 (5)

IOW, Ignorance is bliss! (nt) - marc g. 12:08:25 08/05/12 (1)

That was the point... - mls-stl 13:31:34 08/05/12 (0)

Good for you - Jack G 12:07:58 08/05/12 (1)

Exactly. "To each his own" - AbeCollins 13:32:19 08/05/12 (0)

Love your last sentence--NT - lancelot 11:18:00 08/05/12 (0)

Does it matter? - Paully 08:21:01 08/05/12 (1)

RE: Does it matter? - bullethead 08:26:48 08/05/12 (0)

RE: am I crazy? - tmsorosk 08:13:34 08/05/12 (0)

RE: am I crazy? - michaelhigh 08:09:28 08/05/12 (2)

Agreed, I prefer quality over quantity. - Teresa 18:37:17 08/05/12 (0)

...not until there's no knob on your side of the door! - soldermizer 17:48:52 08/05/12 (0)

Follow Ups

Agreed, I prefer quality over quantity. - Teresa 18:37:17 08/05/12 (0)

Agreed, I prefer quality over quantity.

Post a Message!