I can't believe it. I'ver read countless posts here, many by digital experts, claiming that lossless compression was completely benign. I finally realized that my superstitious believe that keeping an audio file in it's origonal form was unneccessary. Thrilled with the prospect of being able to almost double the number of CDs I can put on my 30gig Ipod I converted my entire Itune catalog to Apple Lossless.
I've gone along happily assuming I was getting the maximum audio quality untill two events occured.
1)I bought a pair of AKG K701s (an extremely good pair of headphones) and a portable amp (RSA Hornet).
2)I read the Squeezebox review in UHF where they claimed that they noticed that WAV files sounded better than Apple Lossless.(they seemed to feel the process that "uncompresses" the file was the culprit)At first I simply didn't believe the article since UHF has been falling further and further behind in it's reporting and knowledge of current technologies. They always seem to be last to "discover" the latest and greatest. They have been well behind most in the mainstream press reporting on the breakthrough Benchmark Dac1, the surprisingly good audio quality of the Ipod, and the revolutionary nature of the Squeezebox. I assumed they simply had convinced themselves that the Apple Lossless files weren't up to par and didn't understand that the files were truely "lossless". Just for the heck of it I transferred the first cut of Patricia Barber's well recorded "Cafe Blue" to my Itunes catalog and left one version in WAV and converted another to Apple Lossless. When I compared them on my Ipod (Using the AKGs and amped with the Hornet) I was stunned to find that the WAV file seemed to open up and breath compared to the Lossless file. It seemed to have more "air", was more dynamic and resolving. I repeatedly checked to make sure I wasn't imagining things but sure enough the WAV file sounded significantly better. Man, what a kick in the teeth. I guess I need to take what I read with a grain of salt because I didn't need to listen very hard to hear the difference.
Gerry
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - gdg 17:26:51 08/13/06 (55)
- What about AIFF vs WAV? - jwbrent 09:52:55 08/16/06 (0)
- Have you tried... - PhilNYC 15:23:22 08/14/06 (0)
- No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Scrith 10:26:57 08/14/06 (22)
- FLACs can go bad. It's happened to me and I've had to re-rip (nt) - Mark Tinordi 07:54:39 08/17/06 (1)
- Re:ANY file can become corrupted... nt - mls-stl 16:21:56 08/20/06 (0)
- FLAC is not compatable with Itunes. - gdg 12:22:52 08/14/06 (1)
- Re: FLAC is not compatable with Itunes. - Scrith 19:34:11 08/14/06 (0)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Dawnrazor 11:43:33 08/14/06 (17)
- OK, I'll bite... - Scrith 20:02:49 08/14/06 (7)
- Re: OK, I'll bite... - Dawnrazor 23:21:14 08/14/06 (6)
- err... - mac  19:43:44 08/18/06 (0)
- Re: OK, I'll bite... - Scrith 10:41:11 08/15/06 (4)
- Re: OK, I'll bite... - Dawnrazor 20:49:30 08/15/06 (3)
- Re: OK, I'll bite... - Vincent VRS 10:08:29 08/16/06 (2)
- interest here too n/t - SeVeReD 02:21:08 08/21/06 (0)
- Re: OK, I'll bite... - Dawnrazor 20:02:02 08/16/06 (0)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Squonk 14:40:24 08/14/06 (8)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Frank25 09:02:20 08/15/06 (0)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Frank25 09:00:24 08/15/06 (6)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Scrith 10:44:53 08/15/06 (5)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Squonk 15:14:41 08/15/06 (2)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Frank25 08:46:59 08/16/06 (1)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Squonk 10:11:54 08/16/06 (0)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Scab 11:33:42 08/15/06 (1)
- Re: No surprise...but who cares about WAV - Squonk 15:08:05 08/15/06 (0)
- Do you have "sound check" enabled? - andy_c 07:17:47 08/14/06 (4)
- Re: Do you have "sound check" enabled? - gdg 09:24:56 08/14/06 (3)
- Re: Do you have "sound check" enabled? - andy_c 09:35:43 08/14/06 (2)
- Re: Do you have "sound check" enabled? - gdg 12:16:35 08/14/06 (1)
- Re: Do you have "sound check" enabled? - brb9 12:22:09 08/14/06 (0)
- Would you mind doing another test... - VinylNewbie 06:16:22 08/14/06 (0)
- I had suspected that also.... - crazychile 05:32:31 08/14/06 (0)
- Whew! I'm glad that I'm not the only one. - Quiet Earth 21:50:51 08/13/06 (4)
- Re: Whew! I'm glad that I'm not the only one. - Scrith 10:25:25 08/14/06 (1)
- Roland M1000 - Quiet Earth 21:29:05 08/14/06 (0)
- Re: Whew! I'm glad that I'm not the only one. - gdg 01:47:07 08/14/06 (1)
- I really want to believe. It looks like fun. - Quiet Earth 21:43:24 08/14/06 (0)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - xmasparty@mac.com 20:46:47 08/13/06 (6)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - gdg 01:33:50 08/14/06 (5)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - AIFF 22:17:16 08/15/06 (1)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - gdg 23:21:46 08/15/06 (0)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - xmasparty@mac.com 08:54:07 08/14/06 (1)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - gdg 09:30:19 08/14/06 (0)
- Ps I use a PC based system. - gdg 01:56:04 08/14/06 (0)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - ThomasPf 18:25:22 08/13/06 (10)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - andy_c 20:27:15 08/13/06 (2)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - ThomasPf 21:12:21 08/13/06 (1)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - gdg 01:24:50 08/14/06 (0)
- Thanks! (nt) - andy_c 21:23:20 08/13/06 (0)
- Re: There is no way Apple Lossless is as good as WAV! - gdg 18:50:01 08/13/06 (5)
- Obvious question... - jbmcb 19:30:17 08/13/06 (4)
- Re: Obvious question... - gdg 19:38:54 08/13/06 (3)
- Re: Obvious question... - jbmcb 20:18:04 08/13/06 (2)
- I agree... - gdg 01:16:14 08/14/06 (1)
- Re: I agree... - Johncan 18:44:16 08/14/06 (0)