Apple Lossless vs AAC

... Nothing to say ... then don't ..... waste of time

Thanks Chris .... You are right .... the math is there like you say .... but .... Did a blind AB ... iMac iTunes 12 (Yosemite Beta 10.10) to appleTV to Emotiva XMC-1 and XPA 5... same settings ... same songs wifi streaming .... My son picked the converted Apple Lossless song 10 for 10 Processor must do something different with the Apple Lossless files.

I'm Done with this topic ... I can't make the equations balance ....

Wow, we need some clarity and definitions here.

1. Apple Lossless Audio Codec ("ALAC") compresses the information on a CD (or other source), but without losing any information (lossless). The Free Losless Audio Codec ("FLAC") is a similar "coder-decoder" ("codec") method (or algorithm), but it's just not owned by Apple. When you play a file encoded using ALAC, you are playing back (decoding) the music with all the detail of whatever source you used to encode the file. What's great about lossless compression is that can sound just as good as a CD. What's bad about lossless compression is that the files are BIG: one pop song is going to be 30-40MB. A lossless file should be made ONLY from a CD, a live recording or other high-quality source.
2. MP3, AAC, etc. are "lossy" compressions. They throw out all the information that some engineers decided weren't "important" enough, or wouldn't make any difference when listening on earbuds, and for the most part, that's true. Most importantly, once a song has been encoded using lossy compression, there is NOTHING you can do to restore that lost information. What is great about lossy compression is that the files are MUCH smaller. What's bad is that when you play a file encoded with lossy compression on a good stereo, with a good Digital-Analog Converter ("DAC"), you will notice a huge difference, a lack of detail or "muddiness" in the sound, less dynamic range (the difference between loud and soft passages), loose bass and less crispness in the treble.
3. To answer the specific question, yes, you could turn an AAC or MP3 file into an ALAC or FLAC file, but there's no point. Once the "extra" information is lost, it's gone, and there ain't no getting it back from the lossy file. The only way to make that same song worth using 10x the storage space is to re-encode the file from the CD, otherwise, you're just putting make-up on a pig. It don't actually look good; it's just gussied up for no reason whatsoever.
4. Much of the cost of a good CD player is in the DAC, so if you want to play your music that you've stored on your computer in lossless format and really make it worth using 10 times the storage space, you need to have (a) good speakers - like better tires on a car, it's the best way to improve your sound system; (b) a good receiver/amplifier to power those speakers cleanly; and (c) a good outboard DAC. Yes, it's an extra gizmo, but even the best amp and speakers can't make a bad signal sound good. A stereo won't make a song you hate sound good to you, right? I personally recommend the Schitt Audio Bifrost (http://schiit.com/products/bifrost), but there are other good products out there (see http://lifehacker.com/five-best-digital-to-analog-converters-dacs-483393503).
5. I store the songs I love in ALAC because hard drive space is pretty reasonable nowadays, but I convert them to AAC when I sync them to the iPhone. Even if you have fancy $300 headphones from Mr. Andre Young, your iPhone doesn't have enough clean power to make it worth storing songs on your iPhone in ALAC. That's the reason they make headphone amplifiers. When I want to blast the sound in the house, I use an old 3rd-gen AppleTV to get the file from iTunes to the Bifrost, and then to the amp and speakers. Sounds wonderful. 🙂

Please ignore the advice of that salesman. He's lying. See my other post for full explanation.

xmeromotu wrote:

Please ignore the advice of that salesman. He's lying.

What salesman?

FYI: You responded to a 3 year old post by rjgrichmond...

Yes, I understand this is an old thread, but there are obviously plenty of people who don't understand how compressing files, specifically music files, works. I've spent a lot of time making sure I understand it, so just sharing my "experience, strength and hope," as they say. Video files, people don't care so much about, so you don't hear much argument over MKV vs. Apple vs. Netflix. But people edit and move their music files, and they invest in expensive gear that they don't really understand, so I think it matter. And it ticks me off when some idiot salesperson gives out false information, whether intentionally or through his own ignorance. So, venting done for today. :-)

My knowledge base in this area is shallow, way shallow! What I understand is the advantage of Apple LossLess format is when you are ripping cds because it gets ALL the musical data, while AAC deletes some musical info to create a smaller file, but sacrificing sound quality. I have no insight on the benefits or non benefits of converting between the two formats.

So I believe I'm better off "importing" or ripping in Apple Lossless to start.

If I'm wrong I would appreciate clarification of that point.

Thanks!

mac4mark wrote:

My knowledge base in this area is shallow, way shallow! What I understand is the advantage of Apple LossLess format is when you are ripping cds because it gets ALL the musical data, while AAC deletes some musical info to create a smaller file, but sacrificing sound quality. I have no insight on the benefits or non benefits of converting between the two formats.

So I believe I'm better off "importing" or ripping in Apple Lossless to start.

If I'm wrong I would appreciate clarification of that point.

Thanks!

Mac4Mark,

Your statements are correct.

As far as "sacrificing sound quality," whether the difference between lossless vs. AAC/256 is enough to worry about is a personal decision. It depends on your own ears, audio equipment, and listening conditions. Feel free to experiment.

The recordings you listen to also make a difference - many modern "popular" recordings and so-called "remastered" reissues of older material are mastered to sound as loud as possible, sacrificing dynamic range, and the difference between CD-quality audio and a copy using lossy compression may be insignificant for many listeners. The difference will be far more apparent with well recorded classical or jazz music.