Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality

67.177.242.32
Posted on October 30, 2008 at 22:51:19
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 I'm sure this question has been asked before but I don't often frequent this forum and I am admittedly too lazy to search the archives.

Do WAV files sound better than Apple Lossless when played from an iPod Classic? I recently ripped a bunch of CDs using Apple Lossless.

My iPod is hooked up to my preamp via the dock and the music sounds OK but not nearly as good as my Accuphase DP-65v CDP or a borrowed Marantz SA-7s1 SACD player. The dedicated CD players have a nice 3-dimensional soundstage with depth and air but in comparison, the iPod sounds "flat".

Of course, the mediocre iPod DAC and analog stage are in play here but I'm wondering if WAV might sound a little better than Apple Lossless? Thanks.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
64kbps mono MP3 is better than both., posted on October 31, 2008 at 03:01:45
Crimson
Reviewer

Posts: 6743
Location: Jersey Shore
Joined: December 11, 2000
 Why don't you just rip a few tracks in WAV and compare for yourself? Or do you not trust your own ears? Not trying to be facetious here, but if someone says ALAC is better and another person says WAV is better, who will you believe?

--eNjoY YouRseLf!.....

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on October 31, 2008 at 06:31:38
Ian Mackenzie
Audiophile

Posts: 1441
Location: Chicago
Joined: January 27, 2002
 Abe -

Apple lossless takes up half the storage as WAV and I have not noticed a quality difference.

If you want better quality from your iPod to your main rig, I suggest getting a Wadia 170 iPod ($379.00) transport and running it into the DAC of your Accuphase CDP.

As always, YMMV.
Ian

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on October 31, 2008 at 08:02:54
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Thanks Ian, I have considered the Wadia i170 dock.

Do you know if the bitstream from Apple Lossless out the iPod, through the i170, will be in a format that most DACs will handle?

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on October 31, 2008 at 08:38:31
Crimson
Reviewer

Posts: 6743
Location: Jersey Shore
Joined: December 11, 2000
 Absolutely. It's all PCM. The differences in formats (WAV, ALAC, FLAC, AAC, etc) are based on file size, but the digital output bitstream is always PCM.

--eNjoY YouRseLf!.....

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on October 31, 2008 at 08:56:07
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 "...but the digital output bitstream is always PCM."

When Apple Lossless is "decompressed" on the fly, is the digital output 44.1KHz 16-bit or whatever the native parameters were on the CD before it was ripped?

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on October 31, 2008 at 09:07:50
Nglazer
Audiophile

Posts: 365
Location: New york
Joined: June 22, 2003
 Hi Abe,

I would strongly recommend the new Wadia iTransport for your iPod. I was one of the early adapters of this product, and with a quality digital cable and upgraded power cord (you will need an adaptor), I have great difficulty hearing any difference from my CEC TL-1x transport to my Dodson 218 DAC. I sit in front of a computer a good part of the day in my law office and the last thing I want to see when I get home is a computer, so the iPod is a welcome respite.

Best,

Neal

 

Yes wav sound better, but you are better off with AIFF, posted on October 31, 2008 at 09:23:58
Gordon Rankin
Manufacturer

Posts: 2928
Joined: June 9, 2000
 Gang,

Yes any non compressed file is going to sound better than compressed. But wav files lack the all important meta data. Therefore if you loose your library and need to rebuild it the AIFF takes like 2 minutes the wav could take you years.

Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin

 

'Splain to me why you want iPod for a scource, posted on October 31, 2008 at 09:39:07
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 9849
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 I'm not sure I understand why an audiophile wants to use an iPod as a source; why not the computer?

I listen to ALAC and FLAC files from my computer on my main system. I copy these files to my iPod for portable listening too; because of my iPod's limited capacity, (4GB), I wouldn't find it practical to load WAVs to the iPod.

I don't find any difference in sound between lossless and WAV listening from my computer. Using Foobar and the ASIO driver of my sound card, I know I'm getting essentially bit-perfect delivery to my standalone DAC because HDCD is detected by the latter. I appreciate the save storage with lossless and also having the metadata in the music file itself, however I accept that some people don't find these to be significant factors.

___
Feanor's Classical Survey: 250 Exemplary Compositions

 

WRONG!!!!!, posted on October 31, 2008 at 09:49:33
Dynaudio_Rules
 Buddies,

Both WAV and AIFF both contain bit perfect raw PCM data. There is no reason to believe bit perfect data from container A will sound any different than the same bit perfect data from container B. IF anything you could factor in that APPLE handles its own file types better ie AIFF than a Windows standard file type WAV. IF so, then a bit perfect AIFF file might sound better on an Apple and a bit perfect WAV might sound better on a PC.


Vista 32bit[JRiver MC]--->Stereovox XV2 coax--->Lavry DA10--->Acoustic Zen Silver RefII--->Aragon 8008BB--->Dynaudio Audience 82
Karma Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

 

It's official..., posted on October 31, 2008 at 10:04:58
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 1169
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
 "Yes any non compressed file is going to sound better than compressed."

Gordon Rankin's (and thereby Wavelength Audio's) judgment about digital audio reproduction is now officially suspect.

 

Thank God. We've all been waiting for the official word., posted on October 31, 2008 at 10:16:20
J.Mac
Audiophile

Posts: 3553
Location: Colorado
Joined: November 6, 2002

 

You are a funny guy., posted on October 31, 2008 at 10:35:21
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 Wav or AIFF files will probably sound better on many computers since the decompressing process is eliminated. This is what Gordon was suggesting. I use AIFF exclusively now.

"Gordon Rankin's (and thereby Wavelength Audio's) judgment about digital audio reproduction is now officially suspect. "

You are truly full of yourself.


 

RE: It's official..., posted on October 31, 2008 at 10:50:19
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "Yes any non compressed file is going to sound better than compressed."
Gordon Rankin's (and thereby Wavelength Audio's) judgment about digital audio reproduction is now officially suspect.

If you believe that getting the right bits to a DAC is all that matters in a digital transport, then you are definitely not in the market for anything but the cheapest computer sound card, subject only to its running at 44/16. I suggest you either (a) open your mind or (b) start ignoring most of the threads in this forum.

Gordon made another suggestion, to use AIFF instead of WAV because of support of tags. This may be true on Apple machines. On PCs the situation is more complex, because some applications appear to work with tags on WAV files, while others do not. Perhaps someone can explain this situation in more detail.


Tony Lauck

"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar

 

I already own one but..., posted on October 31, 2008 at 10:55:54
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 ..I also have a Squeezebox. I need a clean sounding file format that is compatible with both the iPod and Squeezebox. I may get the Wadia 170i and use it with the iPod in my main audio setup alongside the CD player. I will also use slimserver software on a PC and the Squeezebox to get audio out to other places in my home via WiFi.

I am currently working on improving the sound from the iPod Classic 120.

 

RE: It's official..., posted on October 31, 2008 at 11:15:02
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 12587
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 HI Tony,

Gordon made another suggestion, to use AIFF instead of WAV because of support of tags. This may be true on Apple machines. On PCs the situation is more complex, because some applications appear to work with tags on WAV files, while others do not. Perhaps someone can explain this situation in more detail.

What also seems to be true on apple machines is that iTunes tends to hose the database. Every mac user that argues in favor of tags always seems to mention "rebuilding the data base". I don't thing PC users have that issue at least if they are not using iTunes.

Anyhow, I use .wav exclusively but dont know of any applications that support tags with it.

The ones that I have used with .wavs all use a directory structure for "tagging". That leads to Artist/Album/Song title and an album cover being the info provided and managed by the player and the Artist and album being folder names and the file being the song title.

There is one that builds a separate file that has tagging info in it and that is Album Player. I think I remember it only doing this for files that were officially added to its artist database. I'll check on this when I get a chance.

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on October 31, 2008 at 11:20:55
Crimson
Reviewer

Posts: 6743
Location: Jersey Shore
Joined: December 11, 2000
 Yes.

--eNjoY YouRseLf!.....

 

RE: I already own one but..., posted on October 31, 2008 at 11:22:41
J.Mac
Audiophile

Posts: 3553
Location: Colorado
Joined: November 6, 2002
 What many people with iPods do is use some lossless format such as Flac for their main library on the PC or the Squeezebox and keep a transcoded Mp3 library for the iPod for use in the car, exercising, wherever you use your portable player.

It's simple to set up a script to keep a parallel Mp3 library that mirrors your main library. Have it run at 3am to pick up any new or changed files. No effort required.

I just can't see a reason to use an iPod as a source for a home audio system when you there are so many file-based alternatives that sound much better and are more convenient. Any differences between an uncompressed PCM format and a losslessly compressed one will be much smaller than between using the iPod and a better sounding source.

 

RE: It's official..., posted on October 31, 2008 at 11:44:25
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 There is no problem with AIFF in a PC, provided that your player supports it.

For once, I can tell no difference between aiff and wav. These are 88.2k or 96k files.

 

Experiments with tagged WAV files on WXP, posted on October 31, 2008 at 11:51:50
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Thanks for the info. I will provide what I have learned by a little testing on a WXP based system.

I took a FLAC file with tags and converted it to WAV using DBpoweramp. To make sure that this file wasn't known in some magic database, I renamed it to a different file name. I then looked at it using a Windows file directory window as enhanced by the installation of DBpoweramp. The tags were present. When I played the file in Foobar2000 or Winamp the tags were properly displayed. However, Windows Media player and ITunes didn't see them. I used Foobar2000 and exported a .cue file that included the tags, so when I used cPLAY I was able to see the information as well. Finally, I used DBpoweramp to convert the WAV file back to FLAC and got a normal FLAC file complete with tags. So far, it looks like some applications support tags on WAV files and others do not.

Now it gets more complicated. I gave the file another new name and used SoundForge to insert some silence. SoundForge displayed the Title, Artist and Track Number tags, but not the Album. I then saved the file as a WAV. DBpower amp was still able to display all the metadata correctly, including album name. However, now foobar2000 didn't display any of the metadata, nor could it export a proper .cue file. However, Winamp could display all the file attributes. My summary of the situation: support of tags in WAV files is non-standard and haphazard.

Tony Lauck

"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar

 

Calm yourself...he's comparing WAV/AIFF metadata taggability (nt), posted on October 31, 2008 at 12:01:50
tcell
Audiophile

Posts: 585
Location: Maryland
Joined: September 5, 2003
 .

 

RE: It's official..., posted on October 31, 2008 at 12:12:16
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 Apart from metadata containers and other minor changes, I believe the main difference between AIFF and WAV is the file order of two and three byte PCM samples. AIFF is "big endian" following the lead of Motorola and WAV is "little endian" following the lead of Intel.

Those interested in the history of computing may wish to read on and especially read the linked reference. When I worked at Digital Equipment we had computers that worked both ways, so were were caught in the middle of these battles. My last battle was an after hours meeting at an IEEE 802 standards meeting, where a major war broke out between the Ethernet promotors and the IBM Token ring promoters. This meeting was particularly appalling—it was after dinner and many participants had been drinking. The different camps used incompatible notation, so much of the discussion would probably have been incoherent even if all had been sober.


Tony Lauck

"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar

 

I just ordered my Wadia 170i, posted on October 31, 2008 at 14:42:25
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Neal -

My local dealer says they have a shipment of Wadia 170i en-route to Denver scheduled to arrive Nov 4 weather permitting, otherwise a couple days later at most. I ordered one and he will call me when it arrives.

Does the Wadia have optical or coaxial digital out... or both?

Can't wait! Thanks. ...Abe

 

Bit perfect?, posted on October 31, 2008 at 17:05:45
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 1169
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
 The discussion is about lossless compression vs. non-compressed files.

 

huh, no he isn't., posted on October 31, 2008 at 17:08:28
Albert B. Broman
Audiophile

Posts: 740
Location: Pac NW
Joined: July 10, 2000
 "any non compressed file is going to sound better than compressed"

While he is talking about tagging, he is also taking a definitive stand on objective sound quality.

 

What converion program?, posted on October 31, 2008 at 17:35:55
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 9849
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 I presume you need a batch job to run a program that can look for unconverted files and convert them, probably to another directory. What do you use? Can the dBpoweramp batch facility do that?

I'm curious though I don't think I'll do it myself. I thing your advice to Abe is good though.
___
Feanor's Classical Survey: 250 Exemplary Compositions

 

Mr. or Mister?, posted on October 31, 2008 at 17:42:40
Scrith
Audiophile

Posts: 1169
Location: Los Angeles
Joined: July 19, 2005
 "Wav or AIFF files will probably sound better on many computers since the decoding process is eliminated."

I am not the only one here who is full of something, I'm afraid. :-)

Say, as long as we're on the subject, which sounds better to your ears, Mr. or Mister? Maybe you think "Mister" will "probably" sound better because the decoding process is eliminated. On the other hand, it takes longer to read "Mister" than it does to decode "Mr." so maybe you'll be better off with the compressed version? Perhaps it depends on your native language, however. I guess we could spend all day arguing about it. But nothing will change the fact that these two versions of the word sound exactly the same when spoken once the data has been properly buffered. :-)

 

RE: huh, no he isn't., posted on October 31, 2008 at 17:56:27
Dynaudio_Rules
 Comrades,

Tagging, like faster boot time has nothing to do with sound.


Vista 32bit[JRiver MC]--->Stereovox XV2 coax--->Lavry DA10--->Acoustic Zen Silver RefII--->Aragon 8008BB--->Dynaudio Audience 82
Karma Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

 

I can't top this response. nt, posted on October 31, 2008 at 18:00:59
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 nt

 

RE: Bit perfect?, posted on October 31, 2008 at 18:08:04
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I don't want to get into an argument about what the topic was. There appeared to be two topics. The first was whether lossless compression affected sound quality. The second was about the relative merits of AIFF vs. WAV, and the related question of tag support. Both are interesting questions, IMO.

In an ideal world, DACs would output an analog signal that depended only on a mathematical abstraction (a.k.a. digital bitstream) coming from the transport. Since this mathematical abstraction would be the same with bug free lossless compression or uncompressed PCM, the analog output would be the same. Hopefully, other components in the signal chain would be unaffected by any RFI or other side effects of computation going on in the transport. In the real world, DACs have imperfect RFI and jitter rejection and so, to a greater or lesser extent, their output is affected by details of the waveform sent from the transport that are not covered by the mathematical abstraction of "bits". If you want the best sound, you had best stick with DACs designed by people like Gordon who understand this and who have exerted lots of effort developing techniques to reduce the undesired side effects of physical reality.

There is no snake oil involved. The effects are physically real and can be measured. One can argue whether they are important or even audible, and certainly whether they justify straining one's budget, but they are real, none the less.

Personally, I use FLAC because I am often low on disk storage. However, I also use software that reduces and usually eliminates the effect of decompression on playback sound quality.

Tony Lauck

"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar

 

I concur with your findings, posted on October 31, 2008 at 19:01:27
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 9849
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 I did the following on my Vista Home Premium SP 1 machine, (in summary):
= Convert 3 files from FLAC, tag including artwork, to WAV in a different directory.
= Converted the WAV to ALAC
= I read both the WAV and ALAC files using Tag&Rename, and tag and artwork appeard intact
= I modified the tags in both sets but differently
= I pulled the both WAV and ALAC sets into Foobar 9.5.6; Foobar showed both sets but only the ALAC showed tags
= I did the same with iTunes; iTunes did not appear to recognize the WAV files, but did the ALAC files and show the tags and art work
= I relocated and renamed the WAV files
= I converted the WAV files back to FLAC and confirmed that the tags & art were there using Tag&Rename
= I pulled the new, relocated & renamed FLAC files into Foobar which recognized the tags.

My conclusions:
= WAV files do indeed store complete tags & artwork
= dBpoweramp can read and write tags & artwork to and from WAV files
= Tag&Rename can read and write tags & artwork to WAV files
= Foobar2000 9.5.6 does not read WAV tags
= iTunes does not read WAV tags.

___
Feanor's Classical Survey: 250 Exemplary Compositions

 

RE: Mr. or Mister?, posted on October 31, 2008 at 19:11:57
Tuckers
Manufacturer

Posts: 2004
Location: San Francisco
Joined: September 29, 2001
 Thank goodness computers don't have to go through the processing power necessary to Decode Mr. to mis·ter.

 

What findings?, posted on October 31, 2008 at 19:16:37
J.Mac
Audiophile

Posts: 3553
Location: Colorado
Joined: November 6, 2002
 dbPoweramp is putting id3v2 tags (same type of tag used in Mp3s) in the WAV files. It (obviously) can also read them, and a small handful of other programs can as well, but support for id3v2 in WAVs is limited and will sometimes keep the software/device from being able to play the file at all.

 

why not?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 01:14:44
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
 If you believe that playing a Flac file can sound different from playing the same PCM data from a WAV file, why couldn't playing WAV and an AIFF files with the same PCM data sound different?

One format is stored in a big-endian format and the other is stored in a little-endian format. So the processor is going to be doing something extra in one case.

Bill

 

Thanks: this is consistent with my findings ~nt, posted on November 1, 2008 at 02:12:47
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 9849
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 nt
___
Feanor's Classical Survey: 250 Exemplary Compositions

 

RE: why not?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 02:25:01
Roseval
Audiophile

Posts: 1845
Joined: March 31, 2008
 >>If you believe that playing a Flac file can sound different from playing the same PCM data from a WAV file, why couldn't playing WAV and an AIFF files with the same PCM data sound different? <<

If this is the case, a AIFF sounds better on a Power PC (big endian) and a WAV sounds better on a X86 (little endian). Everybody playing AIFF on a x86 Apple is tampering with sound quality!

If increasing system load has a negative impact on sound quality, then system load has a negative impact on sound quality anyway. So best quality could only be obtained by shutting the system down.


The Well Tempered Computer

 

RE: why not?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 04:15:58
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "If this is the case, a AIFF sounds better on a Power PC (big endian) and a WAV sounds better on a X86 (little endian). Everybody playing AIFF on a x86 Apple is tampering with sound quality!"

You would have to look at the machine code output by the compiler and the firmware for all the I/O devices, to know what was going on. And then you would have to look at the impact of the various processing on the general noise environment, power supply functionality, clock oscillator noise rejection, etc. The format used by the processor is just part of the problem, and if the data is just being unpacked and moved this might have very little impact, as all the differences in activity would be happening inside of the CPU chip, moving data around between registers and cache.

IMO doing this would be a complete waste of time. The differences will be slight, and much less so with modern processors. Newer chips use much less energy per computational function. Unless the architecture differences require different data patterns on the busses to load and dump caches, I/O devices, etc. there won't be much of a difference.

There are other equally obscure things to worry about that are much more likely to affect sound quality, if you need something to worry about. For starters, each format requires different software and any differences in the software may have large consequences as they can affect the timing of data movement between the chips, all of which uses much more energy than data movement within a chip. Different timing of data movement leads to different noise spectrum in box, which leads to different jitter spectrum out the transport, different jitter spectrum out the DAC PLL, and hence different jitter spectrum in the final analog waveform.


Tony Lauck

"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: why not?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 04:54:47
Roseval
Audiophile

Posts: 1845
Joined: March 31, 2008
 Well, I was pushing a very fine observation by Old Listener to its ultimate consequence only.
Making all the Apple folks to believe that now they finally do have a computer with a decent processor, they are using the wrong format is not bad either.

The Well Tempered Computer

 

RE: why not?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 06:00:00
Dynaudio_Rules
 Big Endian format stores the most significant bytes (the bytes containing the high order or left most bits) in the lowest address with the following bytes in sequentially higher addresses. The bytes would appear in normal order when written from left to right.

The Little Endian format stores the least significant byte (the byte containing the lowest or right most bits) at the lowest address with the increasingly significant bytes stored at increasing addresses.

I think if anything this would support the theory that an OS written to work with Big Endian would be more efficient processing Big Endian data and produce better sound. Conversley an OS written to work with Little Endian data would sound better processing Little Endian data.

However.....Intel processors use Little Endian processing so when Apple switched over to Intel processors it created the AIFF-C/sowt which is actually Little Endian.
Vista 32bit[JRiver MC]--->Stereovox XV2 coax--->Lavry DA10--->Acoustic Zen Silver RefII--->Aragon 8008BB--->Dynaudio Audience 82
Karma Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on November 1, 2008 at 08:35:46
mikemalter
Reviewer

Posts: 746
Location: San Rafael, California
Joined: July 21, 2001
 Abe, I think it's not so much the differences between lossless formats as it is the iPod DAC.

As a reference perspective, I have an AppleTV with a fiber out into a PS Audio DAC and I can't hear the difference between a CD and Apple Lossless through the DAC. I've basically taken my CD player off of my rack and am only listening to music through the AppleTV (CD's and even internet radio).

I had a Squeezebox, but the audio from the ATV greatly surpasses it even with only a fiber out. It was best for me to get my computer out of the mix sonically.

The only thing I use my iPod for is when I am on the road. Since I needed to reburn my CD collection to get it into the iPod, I used Apple's lossless and the ATV synch's and copies my entire collection onto its hard drive.

Mike

 

RE: why not?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 09:24:28
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
 I understand what Big-endian and Little-endian mean. I had to deal with those issues almost 30 years ago. When architectures are being designed, you get to choose ended-ness. After that you live with the choice.

You didn't get the point I was making.

One storage format is "right" in a particular environment. The other one will require swapping bytes at some point. That is extra work just as Flac decoding is extra work.

In this case, the environment is not the OS but the player s/w, the driver interface and the audio output hardware. If the format isn't right for the player to process, it has to swap bytes. If the format the player works with is not right for the driver interface, the player s/w will have to swap bytes. If the format mandated by the driver interface spec is not the right format for the audio hardware, byte swapping will be needed.

While we are inventing things to worry about, some formats store PCM streams with samples from multiple channels interleaved in a single buffer. And some interfaces specify that sort of interlacing. Other formats and interfaces specify that each channel's PCM stream be continuous (has its own buffer areas.) More swapping required.

For audio streams at current bit rates (even 192 Kbps), byte swapping is not a large load. Neither is decoding Flac files. The real point is that neither load is at all likely to influence audio output unless your CPU is otherwise highly loaded.

Bill


 

RE: Bit perfect?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 09:38:14
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
 > In the real world, DACs have imperfect RFI and jitter rejection and so,
> to a greater or lesser extent, their output is affected by details of
> the waveform sent from the transport that are not covered by the
> mathematical abstraction of "bits".

If I had paid a few thousand dollars for a DAC and it did not reject noise very effectively on an SPDIF or USB input, I'd be pretty unhappy. If the DAC was not able to generate a very clean, low jitter clock, I'd be really unhappy. I would not be looking for a magical cure. I'd be returning the DAC to the incompetent vendor.

Bill

 

RE: Bit perfect?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 10:31:13
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Settling for nothing less than perfection huh? That would mean eschewing sound reproduction, and for that matter listening to performances completely. (Wasn't the perfect performance back in the fifties?)

Engineering is about nothing but good enough, and for audio that's a fuzzy issue in itself. Now that I've gotten that offen my chest I will say that I am probably on the same page you are. Cables should largely be 'don't cares' and that fact that they are not speaks volumes about the rest of the system. I read about people spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on a stupid wall outlet and I scream to myself "Why don't you fix the real problem instead of spending big bucks on band-aids?" But I know the answer all too clearly and it applies to me as well.

As it stands, if we can do a tweak that improves the overall system, that's better than nothing even though it's not getting to the heart of the matter.

I wonder if you read reviews the same way I do. If I read about a component that's so 'resolving and acute' that the least change in the power cord is audible, I've just learned all I need to know about it...

Rick

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on November 1, 2008 at 12:23:24
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46280
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Hi Mike -

I was considering the Apple TV but don't you need a display on it in order to navigate the menu system? I wonder if it will work with a low-end older 1024 x 768 15-inch LCD (with "VGA" connector) that I have collecting dust. I'd rather not have it attached to the plasma screen as I wouldn't want to power it up just to work the Apple TV. Your thoughts?

Thanks for your comments on Apple Lossless sound quality vs your CDs. If it's mainly the iPod DAC/analog stage that's getting in the way of quality sound, I may stay with Apple Lossless. I've already ripped a bunch of CDs using Apple Lossless and would hate to have to go back and redo them in WAV or AIFF.

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on November 1, 2008 at 12:31:16
mikemalter
Reviewer

Posts: 746
Location: San Rafael, California
Joined: July 21, 2001
 Abe, you can use Apple's remote software from the iTunes store (free download) and then use your iPod to control the Apple TV for playing back music and internet radio.

I only used the TV screen when I first got it to set it up. Now I manage it using Apple's remote software. What I really like about ATV is that I have access to my entire music collection and my PC is out of the way (except to manage my iTunes collection of course).


Mike

 

RE: Bit perfect?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 12:42:05
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
 > As it stands, if we can do a tweak that improves the overall system,
> that's better than nothing even ...

Or maybe

... if we can do a tweak THAT WE BELIEVE improves the overall system, that's better than nothing ...

> Engineering is about nothing but good enough, and for audio
> that's a fuzzy issue in itself.

Not much real engineering left in high-end audio. I'm glad that we can use chips and products developed for pro-audio.

Bill

 

Topping Responces, posted on November 1, 2008 at 13:18:25
Dynaudio_Rules
 You know most of the posts on this board are all about one person trying to top anothers responce.

I think I will go on lurk mode and just read for awhile...



Vista 32bit[JRiver MC]--->Stereovox XV2 coax--->Lavry DA10--->Acoustic Zen Silver RefII--->Aragon 8008BB--->Dynaudio Audience 82
Karma Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

 

RE: Bit perfect?, posted on November 1, 2008 at 18:14:48
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Belief isn't necessary, but it doesn't hurt...

I think there is real engineering going on for high-end playback gear. However it can never be as important as improving the recording end. GIGO.

Rick

 

RE: WAV vs Apple Lossless sonic quality, posted on November 2, 2008 at 05:28:56
VinylNewbie
Audiophile

Posts: 160
Joined: September 27, 2004
 If you decide to go with WAV or AIFF, there's no need to re-rip from CD. You can simply convert from Apple Lossless to WAV or AIFF.

 

I don't understand..., posted on November 2, 2008 at 13:07:57
SeVeReD
Audiophile

Posts: 944
Joined: March 25, 2001
 this meta data stuff?, library losing? or, playlist losing? Please tell me what I'm not understanding after I ramble below a bit ... I make blanket statements based on what I think is truth,,, but please point out where I'm wrong.

The player I use looks up info just by me remembering a few string of letters and my Folder/WAV&CUE file system is the naming scheme. I don't make playlists (although this player can) because I load up entire "CD" album (I'll explain more below why playlists don't cut it audiophool wise...)

Here's why I rip solely to a single WAV file with a CUE file (holds the album timing/name info), rather than ripping individual songs from an album.
If you are adding different songs from different albums, well, for me that just doesn't work. You'll always have different volume levels between songs then, so if you try to play different songs from different albums, you'll either be up and down with the volume for each song change or, most music programs are going to offer some type of leveling (replaygain for foobar) that destroys the music for me (won't be bit perfect, won't be proper phase, will make the music flat). Digital volume controls destroy this bit perfect. [XXHE only allows 6db changes of volume for a reason, it keeps the bits as they are and doesn't destroy the integrity of the music..., but it's too big a volume change to use to adjust vol between songs. It would be nice to have finer degree of change, but it destroys the bit perfect that makes XXHE phasure.]
I just put on a whole album and listen, like we did in days gone by with cdplayers... although I can load a couple of albums into memory and select songs shuffle within that.
If I want a jukebox, there are plenty of programs out there for that. But changing the volume digitally [any other way then how Peter does it], is going to destroy the best playback and presentation of the music.

The other reason I rip an album to a single wav/cue is that I do feel the SQ is better than when I've heard the same album ripped to individual songs.... (sev puts on his flac jacket)

Also, (and I think this can be a big thing with players like xxhe/cplay that load the entire wav first before playing...), I get perfect gapless play, just like the original CD intended. And, I don't have the player working to load the next song while the previous song is still playing...which could influence SQ (sev puts on his aluminum foil hat made of old CDs).

Keep the original integrity of your CDs intact and rip to whole WAV/Cue files. I will be happy to try apple stuff... when they support whole WAV/CUE files, but it really makes me suspect when they don't.

Throw your hands up and give up, or be happy with a jukebox...or have both if you want; XXHE/cplay... and a different player (foobar/replaygain) for jukebox play.


My library is my folder/file system. I have loose categories of music in main folders: Rock, Classical, Folk.... Then the cd is ripped into it's own folder. Folder name is artist - year - album. Inside this folder is one WAV file, one CUE file, and .jpg images of the cover/ect. If the external HDDs that hold this folder/file system takes a dump, (which so far hasn't happened) I'll run to the offline backup HDD and create another.

Another example:
it's all about naming the folders.
I like loose categories and can fit just about everything under these main folders:
rock
classical
jazz
folk
children

Under these main folders go the album folders. My album folder naming scheme looks like this:

artist - year - album

Miracle Fortress - 2007 - Five Roses

In the album folders are:

One entire album .wav file:
Miracle Fortress - 2007 - Five Roses.wav

One cue file:
Miracle Fortress - 2007 - Five Roses.cue

.JPGs of pictures of the album

I can look up stuff just by typing a few letters of the name ... tho brings up everything from beethoven to ...anything with tho in the name.
Vista 64 prem http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=352.msg4021#msg4021 >WAV/CUE files on HDDs via firewire400;[XXHighEnd player Q1 -2 processor appt.#3;player priority nothing;thread priority nothing];>pci FW800>Fireface800>Stereovox coax>StelloDAC

 

Enjoy your music and don't sweat the small details!, posted on November 2, 2008 at 13:38:57
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 You are seeking physical perfection, something that is unattainable in this universe, and you are expecting divine perfection from mere mortals. Good luck.

Even the 1's and 0's themselves come with a bit error rate, and so will have a certain probability of error every time you need them, perhaps one chance in a billion for an error if you play an entire album when reading from a computer disk inside a box, much greater when going between boxes. Even in the world of abstract bits there can be no perfection. You can blame Mr. Heisenberg and Mr. Shannon if you feel like blaming a messenger.

Enjoy your music and don't sweat the small details!

Tony Lauck

"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: Enjoy your music and don't sweat the small details!, posted on November 2, 2008 at 14:10:40
Old Listener
Audiophile

Posts: 2090
Location: SF Bay area
Joined: February 6, 2005
 > You are seeking physical perfection, something that is unattainable in
> this universe, and you are expecting divine perfection from mere mortals.

You don't seem to understand the irony in the situation.

I'm not a vendor touting a product as delivering sublime audio quality and then reporting that my equipment requires a fancy USB cable to sound its best. And I'm certainly not buying anything from such vendors.

> Even the 1's and 0's themselves come with a bit error rate,
> and so will have a certain probability of error every time you need
> them, ...

I don't understand why this relates to anything I posted.

Bill

 

RE: Enjoy your music and don't sweat the small details!, posted on November 2, 2008 at 14:32:00
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 I have no problem with vendors touting their products as "sublime" or other meaningless statements. I'm used to marketing hype. I grew up with it and it paid for my education: "A diamond is forever." Where I get off is with vendors that offer pseudo technical explanations of how their products work. Then I consider them potentially dishonest and/or technically incompetent.

In the thread some have touted bit-perfection as the sine qua non of PC audio. It is the part of the process that has the closest hope of reaching perfection, but even here perfection is unattainable. That was my point—perfection is unattainable.


Tony Lauck

"Perception, inference and authority are the valid sources of knowledge" - P.R. Sarkar

 

RE: I don't understand..., posted on November 2, 2008 at 15:45:46
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 SeVeReD,

I tried the latest XXHighEnd Player (Windows Vista) with the Wav/Cue file and then the individual files. I really couldn't hear any difference on my system. But, it did sound very nice either way.

My personal philosophy for playback is different than yours. I want a musical experience that is convenient as well musically engaging. The ability to select different songs with my iPodTouch remote is important to me. I guess the "purist approach" is reserved for my vinyl.

Since my preamp is remote controlled, changing the volume from selection to selection is no big deal. And sure, I do listen to complete albums without fussing.

I feel that there are many equally valid approaches to this hobby and enjoy reading about the experiences of other AA folks.

Thanks for sharing.

Steve


 

RE: I don't understand..., posted on November 2, 2008 at 17:47:33
SeVeReD
Audiophile

Posts: 944
Joined: March 25, 2001
 I understand. I don't have a vinyl rig anymore :/ wish I did, so I put all my NRG into this computer thing. and yes, I see that changing the volume should be no big deal to most, but it is for me. I had high hopes of being able to use the digital volume on the computer, but that doesn't work out, so I'm back to having to change volume at my xover...in a closet next to the music room... with 4 volume controls. bleh ok good post Steve, just thought I'd throw out what I do.
Vista 64 prem http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=352.msg4021#msg4021 >WAV/CUE files on HDDs via firewire400;[XXHighEnd player Q1 -2 processor appt.#3;player priority nothing;thread priority nothing];>pci FW800>Fireface800>Stereovox coax>StelloDAC

 

RE: Bits is bits...., posted on November 2, 2008 at 20:05:20
cfmsp
Audiophile

Posts: 526
Joined: October 21, 2006
"I wonder if you read reviews the same way I do. If I read about a component that's so 'resolving and acute' that the least change in the power cord is audible, I've just learned all I need to know about it..."


very interesting comment, Rick.

thanks for sharing.

 

RE: Topping Responces, posted on November 3, 2008 at 23:45:24
fmak
Audiophile

Posts: 13158
Location: Kent
Joined: June 1, 2002
 That is why I will not respond to a certain gentleman.

 

RE: Topping Responces, posted on November 4, 2008 at 07:50:36
Dynaudio_Rules
 Yeah I see a lot of that on this board.

Most of the regulars here are not on speaking terms anymore.

I guess that is what happens when you get a room full of know-it-all male egos talking about a subject that can hardly be viewed as subjective.



Vista 32bit[JRiver MC]--->Stereovox XV2 coax--->Lavry DA10--->Acoustic Zen Silver RefII--->Aragon 8008BB--->Dynaudio Audience 82
Karma Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

 

RE: It's official..., posted on November 11, 2008 at 19:55:45
sxr71
Audiophile

Posts: 980
Joined: January 2, 2002
 These old school audiophile types have the weirdest ideas and honestly they seem to design their equipment with these weird "audiophile pillars of truth". The smart audiophile can find ways to have great playback without buying the $$$$$ stuff that these guys overengineer to fight imaginary "audiophile" problems with complex over the top "solutions". Get a grip on modern technology first and maybe you guys will realize that it doesn't require these "over the top" solutions to get a good result. I know its hard to make a living making simple $500 products, but seriously get over yourselves.

 

RE: Bit perfect?, posted on November 11, 2008 at 19:59:57
sxr71
Audiophile

Posts: 980
Joined: January 2, 2002
 What is this magical software that reduces the effects of "physical reality"?

 

RE: Enjoy your music and don't sweat the small details!, posted on November 11, 2008 at 20:05:44
sxr71
Audiophile

Posts: 980
Joined: January 2, 2002
 Okay, most of who took high school physics already know that. So what's your point? We should sit here and worry about a missing or erroneous bit that happens once after the transfer of several billion bits on average? Should I let this worry me during my next listening session? OMG, this may not be sounding right because there is a 1 in several billion chance that one of the bits that just entered my DAC was wrong?

Are people suggesting that I go buy a $15,000 DAC that reduces that chance from one in several billion to one in a trillion to feel safe and secure when listening?

I mean the only question that's relevant is: Does it sound right or not?

 

RE: Bit perfect?, posted on November 11, 2008 at 20:08:09
sxr71
Audiophile

Posts: 980
Joined: January 2, 2002
 Well said. I used to fall for that BS, and over time I matured to the point where began to understand why this place is called the audio"asylum".

 

RE: Bit perfect?, posted on November 11, 2008 at 21:16:19
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 6230
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Thank you.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as BS, but if it's the user trying to do his best to alleviate systemic problems by altering the physical interfaces, I tend to agree. The problems should be resolved by design and specification. But in this field they aren't and indeed the user can often achieve significant improvements by focusing on the interfaces. Also if he doesn't wish to modify the components they are about the only exposed points.

So while I may feel a sense of frustration that so much time and money are spent in that area, I understand it and do some of it myself. You use the handle that you have even if it doesn't have very good leverage.

Rick

 

RE: Enjoy your music and don't sweat the small details!, posted on November 11, 2008 at 22:00:00
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "I mean the only question that's relevant is: Does it sound right or not?"

Exactly. Enjoy the music and don't sweat the small details.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

cPlay: "magical software", posted on November 11, 2008 at 22:16:53
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 13629
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
 "What is this magical software that reduces the effects of "physical reality"?

The "magical software" that I use is written by cics and is called cPlay. It works by playing music out of RAM memory. If the file is a FLAC compressed file, the file is expanded and the uncompressed data stored in RAM memory before playback commences. So at the time the music is played, there are no effects created by decompression because there is no decompression taking place.

There is a slight price for this capability. The start of the first track of a play list is slightly delayed while the first two tracks are loaded into memory. In addition, there is a chance that the loading of the third track will take longer than the "lead-in grooves" of the second track, in which case there might be a slight sonic degradation for a second or two at the start of the third track, etc. So there may be something to be gained by using WAV rather than FLAC. Earlier versions of cPlay kept an entire play list in RAM and thus completely eliminated any degradation from decompression, but this created problems with memory challenged systems, especially with hi-res digital.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

 

Page processed in 0.174 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]