Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > Quality Codecs: Apple Lossless vs WAV vs AIFF

Quality Codecs: Apple Lossless vs WAV vs AIFF
Thread Tools
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2007, 01:20 PM
 
Last year, I set about reimporting all of my more favored bands in iTunes with Apple's Lossless codec.

After doing so, I noticed the increase in quality (over MP3), and never thought much of it beyond that.

Then, recently, I began to wonder whether I made a mistake in choosing to go with Apple's proprietary Lossless over AIFF or WAV. Namely for the reasons that it locks me out of being able to use these files on a number of 3rd party devices. From alternative MP3 players, to my home stereo with its USB port that wont recognize Lossless files.

Did I actually gain anything as far as audio quality by going with Apple's codec (over WAV or AIFF)? Or did I simply sacrifice compatibility by sticking with The Mothership's creation?

Any input on the plusses and minuses of the three options would be much appreciated.
( Last edited by Lateralus; Oct 23, 2007 at 01:56 PM. )
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2007, 01:42 PM
 
Since it's lossless the audio data is identical to the original. You didn't gain any quality over the original, but at the same time you didn't lose any either. The only thing you gained was disk space over the original. AIFF and WAV are lossless as well, so the actual audio data is identical to the original (and therefore identical to Apple Lossless) as well. They just don't compress. All lossless data formats can be converted into each other without data loss. You can also convert them to lossy formats like MP3 or AAC with the same result as if you imported directly from the original.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2007, 01:46 PM
 
I'm confused by your question. Are you asking whether you gained anything over sticking with AIFF or WAV, or gained anything by choosing Apple Lossless over a lossy format like MP3 or AAC? Or if you gained anything by choosing Apple Lossless over another lossless codec like FLAC?

At the risk of sounding pedantic: you did not gain or lose anything in sound quality by choosing Apple Lossless over AIFF or WAV. Apple Lossless will sound exactly the same as the source material.

Assuming you already knew that, what you gained was the decrease in file size. Apple Lossless files should take up only ~60%, on average, of the space of a CD track ripped to WAV or AIFF. It's also more convenient for tagging purposes.

Most importantly: you are not locked in. The advantage of storing your main music library in a lossless format is that you can easily batch convert it to a lossy format like MP3 or AAC, at any quality settings or bitrate that you choose, depending on your needs at the time. You can also convert it to another lossless format, with no quality loss, if the technology changes or you need a new file type for compatibility reasons. Apple Lossless is proprietary, but you are not prevented from converting it to other lossless file types. At a bare minimum, you can always convert it to AIFF or WAV, which you can then convert to anything else. More conveniently, you can use a program like Max (which plugs directly into Core Audio) to directly convert Apple Lossless to FLAC (an open-source lossless format), in addition to the usual MP3, AAC, or other lossy formats.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Oct 23, 2007 at 02:33 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Lateralus  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2007, 01:55 PM
 
Oh, I know I didn't gain anything over the original CD quality. Obviously.

I was more referring to whether or not going with Lossless had an advantage over WAV or AIFF.

I wasn't aware Lossless did any file compression. Hmm...

I'm probably locked into Lossless then unless I want to buy a new iPod because I'm already pushing the thing to its storage limit. Going to WAV or AIFF would only make it worse.

Thanks.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Aegis
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2007, 02:28 PM
 
Unless you're creating/editing music, there's not much point having WAV or AIFF. Lossless keeps it the same and saves you space, so there's no real downside. In my mind, the only important Lossless codecs are Apple's and FLAC.

FLAC is open source so it's implemented in many more devices than Apple's. However since iTunes/iPods don't handle FLAC I've been using Apple's. I'm quite happy with it. It even compresses a bit more than FLAC and encodes faster.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2007, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
Oh, I know I didn't gain anything over the original CD quality. Obviously.

I was more referring to whether or not going with Lossless had an advantage over WAV or AIFF.
Apple Lossless includes support for song info tags and covers, which are NOT stored in the WAV or AIFF files.

In other words, Apple Lossless is in a sense MORE portable than the generic formats in that your carefully accumulated info is retained when you transfer it to another machine or disk.

There is by definition no difference in audio quality between Apple Lossless and uncompressed lossless formats such as AIFF and WAV.
     
Headshot
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2008, 09:21 PM
 
I know this is an old one but for what it's worth, I chose the WAV format to reimport my entire collection, mainly for 3 reasons:

-The day is at hand, finally, when hard drives are so compact and inexpensive that it's no longer unrealistic to store that much data on a drive

-My new PS3 can stream my entire iTunes collection from my Mac's router at verbatim quality and cannot read AIFF/AAC files

-Because my B&K/JM Lab setup in the frontroom is sooooo revealing, for the first time ever I can distinguish between
MP3/320 & audio file quality.

So, I finally got what I've been waiting 10 years for!
The only trade off is the loss of album art.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2008, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Headshot View Post
-Because my B&K/JM Lab setup in the frontroom is sooooo revealing, for the first time ever I can distinguish between
MP3/320 & audio file quality.
Have you done a blind listening test?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2008, 11:16 PM
 
Please don't go there.

Again.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2008, 12:24 PM
 
I wish iTunes had an option to downsample or export as a different format when syncing with iPods (like it does when syncing to a Shuffle). This allows me to keep 192kbps AAC files on my Mac and main iPod, but when I sync to Shuffle to exercise, it resamples songs at 128kbps as they are synced. Perfect, now expand that capability to any sync...
     
nicmart
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2008, 10:39 AM
 
I had a problem with my first-time post and now I can't detemine how to delete this. Move to the next one, please.
( Last edited by nicmart; Jan 28, 2008 at 11:00 AM. )
     
nicmart
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2008, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
I wish iTunes had an option to downsample or export as a different format when syncing with iPods (like it does when syncing to a Shuffle). This allows me to keep 192kbps AAC files on my Mac and main iPod, but when I sync to Shuffle to exercise, it resamples songs at 128kbps as they are synced. Perfect, now expand that capability to any sync...
I want to agree with and expand upon this.

For those who don't know, when synced to a Shuffle, iTunes can be instructed to auto-downsize transferred files to 128 kbps. It does not provide this capability with any other iPod. I find this baffling and maddening.

My "song" collection is all Apple Lossess except for audiobooks. It consumes 470 GB. I connect and play through my home audio system using a Mac Mini. The entire collection of 40-some thousand music files might fit on a 160 GB iPod Classic if the files were converted to lossy. I have no desire to create and maintain a duplicate collection of lossy files for iPod use.

This has become immediately relevant because my 3G iPod has just died. It was filled with 128 kbps files from pre-lossless days. For the first time since the 2G iPod was introduced I have no iPod, and I don't intend to buy one until Apple offers auto-downsizing for more capacious models.

One could speculate endlessly about why Apple rewards Shuffle users and penalizes Apple Lossless users, but it illustrates again the risk of buying into an Apple proprietary format.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2008, 11:27 AM
 
Apple Lossless just saves disk spaces, just like zipping a file does. AFAIK it achieves similar compression rates than flac (roughly 50 %) while not reducing the quality one bit.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2008, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by nicmart View Post
One could speculate endlessly about why Apple rewards Shuffle users and penalizes Apple Lossless users, but it illustrates again the risk of buying into an Apple proprietary format.
How does it illustrate that? If you had used FLAC, you think it would be able to downsample it for use on an iPod?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,