Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod Apple Lossless vs. 320 KBPS
- Thread starter Numbers
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I Agree, ALAC and any other 'lossless' format is just a joke (for non professionals) eating out extreme large chunks of HD space. Probably the bit-rate of lossless will even change during the coming years and all your precious 'lossless' becomes worthless.
Yep, take it from someone who ripped his own cd's 3 times (160, 256, 320kbs) until getting smart and going with apple lossless. Even load my iPod Touch (32 GB) up with apple lossless.
Others may disagree, but I can here the difference between 320 kbs and apple lossless.
If you think that's bad, how about the people who say they can hear a difference between FLAC and ALAC? To me, lossless is lossless - I can hear no difference. But I can hear a difference between a lossy MP3 (even at 320kbps) and a lossless file.
I started out with an MP3 library years back, but slowly replaced everything with fresh FLAC rips. Now, I decided that I was sick of messing around with Foobar as my playback solution and I want my library to integrate with iTunes, so I am converting everything from FLAC to ALAC. It's quick and easy, since its lossless to lossless. I would love it if Apple would just support FLAC instead of having their own closed codec, but you can always go from ALAC back to FLAC if you ever have to without much problem.
I started out with an MP3 library years back, but slowly replaced everything with fresh FLAC rips. Now, I decided that I was sick of messing around with Foobar as my playback solution and I want my library to integrate with iTunes, so I am converting everything from FLAC to ALAC. It's quick and easy, since its lossless to lossless. I would love it if Apple would just support FLAC instead of having their own closed codec, but you can always go from ALAC back to FLAC if you ever have to without much problem.
320kbps, I say this because its more of a universal format and 2nd Lossless wouldn't make any difference on a device like the iPod because of hardware limitations on the device (Its DAC Chip).
Now if you were using a Cowon player or Sansa you *MIGHT* (but highly unlikely) be able to tell the difference as both brands have better DACs.
Not knocking apple in anyway, but the iPod isn't exactly known as a high quality audio device.
Now if you were using a Cowon player or Sansa you *MIGHT* (but highly unlikely) be able to tell the difference as both brands have better DACs.
Not knocking apple in anyway, but the iPod isn't exactly known as a high quality audio device.
Conspiracy theory
Yeah, man! Lossless is just a way for the hard drive/computer industrial complex to control us, man! Think about what you wrote. "Lossless" is, by definition, lossless. In other words, it's pretty much all there and probably can be converted to this "lossless" you speak of in the future. Or are you from the future? If so, I apologize for everything I said.
Yeah, man! Lossless is just a way for the hard drive/computer industrial complex to control us, man! Think about what you wrote. "Lossless" is, by definition, lossless. In other words, it's pretty much all there and probably can be converted to this "lossless" you speak of in the future. Or are you from the future? If so, I apologize for everything I said.
I do love how there are all these responses to a 2 year old thread and no one seems to notice - or care - that OP has made his decision and is long gone.
To answer those who have posted since the thread has been resurrected, lossless is lossless. There is not going to be a change in the "bitrate" of lossless since bitrates do not come into play here. That's just a misunderstanding of how this works.
Lossless is lossless, but there are compressed lossless formats that will take up less space than a straight 1:1 copy but retain the exact same sound quality.
If you want the best possibly sound quality and for maximum compatibility, the smartest thing to do is to rip into a lossless format. Whether it is ALAC, FLAC, OGG, WAV whatever - it doesn't matter. The reason to use lossless is that you can convert from one lossless format to another with no loss of quality. You are not trapped into one format and you will not have to re-rip if you leave one platform for another.
If you cannot hear the difference between the different bitrates, then good for you. Use the smallest one that you like. There is no need to waste space for no benefit TO YOU. If it sounds good to you, that is all that matters.
I can hear the difference so I have ripped my 2000+ CDs to ALAC. I chose a compressed lossless format since there was no need to be silly with storage space. I did it out of convenience. I do not have the space in my small-ish apartment to have easy access to my CDs, so they are ripped then stored in a box. Hard drive space is cheap, so I have a few TBs in a RAID box and stream to my AX.
Works for me, but YMMV.
To answer those who have posted since the thread has been resurrected, lossless is lossless. There is not going to be a change in the "bitrate" of lossless since bitrates do not come into play here. That's just a misunderstanding of how this works.
Lossless is lossless, but there are compressed lossless formats that will take up less space than a straight 1:1 copy but retain the exact same sound quality.
If you want the best possibly sound quality and for maximum compatibility, the smartest thing to do is to rip into a lossless format. Whether it is ALAC, FLAC, OGG, WAV whatever - it doesn't matter. The reason to use lossless is that you can convert from one lossless format to another with no loss of quality. You are not trapped into one format and you will not have to re-rip if you leave one platform for another.
If you cannot hear the difference between the different bitrates, then good for you. Use the smallest one that you like. There is no need to waste space for no benefit TO YOU. If it sounds good to you, that is all that matters.
I can hear the difference so I have ripped my 2000+ CDs to ALAC. I chose a compressed lossless format since there was no need to be silly with storage space. I did it out of convenience. I do not have the space in my small-ish apartment to have easy access to my CDs, so they are ripped then stored in a box. Hard drive space is cheap, so I have a few TBs in a RAID box and stream to my AX.
Works for me, but YMMV.
No think about what you wrote. Audio lossless != true lossless. Since there's only a (very) limited amount of data that can be stored on LP's, CD's, HD's it's impossible to store the sound at any given time in a certain realistic time interval (the smallest difference in time we now think exists is know as the planck time, and there fit about 10^43 of those in one second ...). Secondly, there is an under limit for length (thus also for wavelength differentiations) namely the planck distance. There fit 10^40 possibilities in wavelength in the reach of 1 Hz to 44.1 kHZ (reach of WAV). Care to explain how they fit 3.6x10^3x10^43x10^40 (= 3.6x10^86) bits on a disk only cable of storing 7x10^9 bits (a CD)? Super compression?
Well that's why they invented sampling. Currently standard WAV has 44100 samples per second, with every sample limited to 16-bit. That's how. Ow, wait? Isn't this a simplification? Darn, it is! And that's also why lossless audio has indeed a bit-rate. I wouldn't argue you over you'd still hear the difference between true true audio and the current lossless, but then again how many people are capable of hearing the difference between 320 kbps AAC and a 16-bit sampled WAV? Maybe some minors and that extremely 'gifted' audiophile, and is that even true (or just in our head)? How capable is our hardware in delivering us that 'pure sound'. Most people even toy around with there equalizer, so what's the point in extremely precise sound, if it itself doesn't even suffice your hearing needs.
Third, it was even a first-page post here on macrumors. There are rumors of 24-bit sampled audio offered in the iTunes Store. In the past they used 8-bit sampled. So there is still an evolution on going within lossless audio. Maybe you wouldn't hear the difference, but just like in photoshop (64-bit colors ipv 32-bit, while the human eye can't even see the difference between all the 32-bit colors), these higher bit sampling result in less quality loss when editing the sound.
Then why even ask the question? Lossless is the way to go for you.
Yes, I know that many people will say "I can't hear the difference" Well then I say those people are lucky. However if they one day buy better equipment and if they learn to listen more critically they may become less lucky and find they need to re-rip their CDs
"Lossless" refers to the conversion from whatever you have. You can't convert from what you don't have.
I recently switched to Apple Lossless, after all Gigabytes are cheap these days. Plus iTunes will downconvert them to 128kbs when syncing with iPods as an option (faster conversion with AL than MP3 or AAC)
"The bit rate of lossless will change"??? How can that happen?
A lossless file is bit per bit identical to the CD. You can ALWAYS transform a lossless recording back to the same files that were on the CD.
I wonder where some of the people who commented studyed this stuff. Where they just reading forum posts or something?
Oh, OK.
Until then, those of us that care, will continue to use the lossless codec of our choice. It is the best thing available to us now. When or if these bit-rate changes take place we will most likely upgrade our methods. Our current lossless will not become worthless. Still listenable, just like some of the 128kbps files I now own. In the mean time, please don't be angry at me for insisting on "wasting" my HD space.
Until then, those of us that care, will continue to use the lossless codec of our choice. It is the best thing available to us now. When or if these bit-rate changes take place we will most likely upgrade our methods. Our current lossless will not become worthless. Still listenable, just like some of the 128kbps files I now own. In the mean time, please don't be angry at me for insisting on "wasting" my HD space.
With the loudness wars and bad quality records these days a bad dac or codec is sometimes a boon. I really like old records (no crappy remasters) due to their audio quality. I really hate when great songs are tarnished by lousy recordings.
16-bit CD is ALWAYS going to be 16-bit. 24-bit audio requires a different format - SACD, DVD-audio, etc. CD is always going to be 16-bit, period. You cannot record the music on a CD into 24-bit and get anything other than 16-bit audio - it's like saving an image at a higher resolution. It just makes the file bigger but doesn't do anything to make the image better. The change to 24-bit audio is a completely different beast than you are making it out to be. That goes back to the original masters as the source because that's the only way you'll hear any differences and improvements.
Lossless is lossless - what is on your disc is what you get (barring rip errors, of course.) You take exactly what is on the disc as data and you put it someplace else as data: lossless.
Have a read of this http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295 then get back with the results.
320 ACC against ALAC good luck trying to hear a difference, you just wont.
320 ACC against ALAC good luck trying to hear a difference, you just wont.
A simple answer to hearing the difference between loosless and MP3 is:
everyone's ears can be trained and are developed differently. If you LISTEN music a lot with quality environment, you will hear the difference. And there are differences. If you always listen 192/320 Kbits and you give a shot to Loosless, you won't recognize anything. If you listen loosless all the time and you go back to 320 you will experience the difference because your ears are used to a higher resolution quality.
You can focus with your ears, like you focus with your eyes.
But like blackburn said. There are other things making it difficult. Most of todays music is too compressed which kills the dynamic and makes it much harder to feel a difference in terms of quality.
everyone's ears can be trained and are developed differently. If you LISTEN music a lot with quality environment, you will hear the difference. And there are differences. If you always listen 192/320 Kbits and you give a shot to Loosless, you won't recognize anything. If you listen loosless all the time and you go back to 320 you will experience the difference because your ears are used to a higher resolution quality.
You can focus with your ears, like you focus with your eyes.
But like blackburn said. There are other things making it difficult. Most of todays music is too compressed which kills the dynamic and makes it much harder to feel a difference in terms of quality.
Right, but we're talking about the best way to store the media *we currently own*. In the future high-res audio might become the norm, but I'm willing to bet that 90% of my collection will never be released in anything higher than 16bit/44.1KHz.
That's an interesting proposition. I have a high end sound system in my car but I use mp3s for convenience, and the guy at the audio shop was impressed with how it sounded "for mp3s." I'm going to try this weekend ripping a cd at 320 VBR, 320 CBR, and lossless and see if my wife plays them at random, if I can hear a difference. I am hoping not to, lol, b/c I like fitting lots of mp3s on a flash drive, etc.