Apple Lossless or not?
-- Fri, 01/09/2009 - 15:11
I am new to this website and somewhat late to the music server discussion.
I recently began running a spare Dell desktop as a music server using iTunes. It feeds a Cambridge Audio DacMagic via USB and then into my system. I am listening and enjoying digital music now much more than before I began using the computer and the DAC.
The question I have is this: I only rip CDs now using the Apple Lossless format, but much of my music previously ripped into iTunes is in mpeg or AAC formats. iTunes provides an option to convert all that music to Apple Lossless, but will the resulting music file duplicate the CD music file bit for bit as if it had originally been ripped from the CD in the Apple Lossless format? It seems reasonable to me that there would be some degradation through the conversion. If so, please explain.
Finally, I've been reading that many are somewhat disparaging about iTunes and Apple Lossless format. What's wrong with it?
Carl Espy
c [dot] espy [at] live [dot] com
Upsmpling an MP3 file from the iTunes utility will not get any better sound than the original file.
The only way to improve the sonics of an MP3 file is to re-rip the original CD to a higher sample rate such as Apple Lossless or AIFF.
The only thing wrong with Apple Lossless is its lack of support on Windows Media Server platforms due to its proprietary nature. PC-centric folks abhore anything "closed" or Apple-centric.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Steven - thanks for the response.
Before spending alot of time re-ripping my music, what format would you recommend I use, just how do I go about ripping a CD in that format and through what software would I then interface with my music? (My operating system is Windows XP, SP3)
Thanks for helping. I am more excited about listening now that that I put the PC/DacMagic combination in place. Digital is sounding much better. And the convenience of a music server is compelling to me.
Carl Espy
c [dot] espy [at] live [dot] com
I have to put in a vote for skipping any kind of compression and just ripping everything to WAV. You can always rip down, but you can never rip back up. And with storage being super-cheap these days, I can't see a good reason to compress anything.
I've got over 10 000 songs converted to apple lossless. It's too late to go back now (it took forever to rip the cd's the first time round) and I can't seem to find a good batch converter that represents as little effort as I'm willing to put in (I can't fathom converting by an album or track at a time). If I could go back in time I would rip to FLAC. It's completely open, plays natively on things like the squeezebox, and seems to be the format of choice on many online music stores for hi-res digital.
Jared, that is the Apple Lossless dilemma.
But I heard some information from several music server makers at CES that gave me hope that in the near future Apple iTunes users will have easier upgrade paths to many servers so they will not have to convert Apple Lossless to anything else.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
While this reply is obviously a few months late, you can convert from Apple Lossless (ALAC) to FLAC very easily using dbPowerAmp Music Converter. The registered version can do a batch conversion of an entire folder (and all the sub-folders), so you could have it convert all your music easily. It will take it quite a while (120 GB of Apple Lossless to FLAC took me 5-6 hours on a Quad Core PC), but it'll do the job that you're after.
The question is- which sounds better? The recent TAS suggests that AIFF sounds better than Apple Lossless. Has anyone done the experiment themselves? If so, would you like to share your opinion?
Bits are bits. As long as the information is preserved the format doesn't matter. The sound quality comes down to the quality of the DAC and downstream audio components.
Hi mike817,
I recently conducted some experiments to determine if in fact the so-called "lossless" formats sound identical to the raw, un-reduced PCM original (i.e. .aif or .wav). I wanted to examine some of these formats as we were deciding on the formats Soundkeeper would use as of our next release when we'd add files-on-disk as an option. I'm also in the process of building a music server for my own listening.
Here's what I found:
With a so-called "lossless" format like FLAC (or Apple Lossless, etc.), it is possible to restore the original, bit-for-bit (as proven down to the sample level in a null test) BUT this is true ONLY when the extraction is performed outside of real-time, i.e. NOT while listening but as a separate process performed by the appropriate software.
On the other hand, when extracted in real-time, i.e. while listening, there is a sonic price to pay as the result sounds harder and brighter than the original, un-reduced, linear PCM file. This is not a "night-and-day" difference and I can imagine some listeners on some systems not detecting it. Nonetheless, the difference is quite audible and on our system, I was able (and every one of my listening partners were able) to identify the reduced file within the first few seconds of play. This was in a blind, direct comparison with the original file. Everyone got it 100% of the time, with different types of music and playing the files in different software applications (some of which are pro level apps I use in my work).
I have spoken with some colleagues about this and their experience has been the same. It is much the same as the case with the best sample rate conversion algorithms: when used off-line (i.e. not while listening), they can be utterly transparent; when used in real-time (i.e. while listening), the sound gets brighter and harder. (I hear exactly the same characteristics with DACs and CD players that apply real-time sample rate conversion, and so, I avoid them and don't recommend them.)
As a result of the tests, I have decided that Soundkeeper releases (as well as the server for my own listening) will include only non-reduced, raw, linear PCM (i.e. .aif or .wav) formats.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
If you can hear a difference between the two then you should use AIFF.
I can't and I don't. In direct matched level A/B Apple Lossless verses AIFF on a high-resolution desktop system I can't hear any discernable differences between the two file storage methods.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
If both formats are lossless, and when replayed exactly replicate the original, how can one sound better than the other? Am I missing something?
Apple Lossless will sound as near as anything to the original CD. It is after all, in essence, a Zip file.
The only reason I have for using AIFF over Apple Lossless is if you use or plan to use Amarra software with iTunes.
Amarra does not support Apple Lossless, but it does support AIFF.
Steven Stone
Contributor to The Absolute Sound, EnjoytheMusic.com, Vintage Guitar Magazine, and other fine publications
Hi Steven,
i am investigating the Amarra software and have a question for you. i am soon to receive the dCS Scarlatti stack. I opted not to take a transport and will be using my Mac with the Scarlatti Upsampler. I am trying to find out 1) if the Amarra software will work wiht the Scarlatti (i know it is not approved yet but seems most USB DACs work with Amarra) and 2) is there a send of double dipping, i.e. is the Upsampler from Scarlatti doing the same thing that the Amarra software or can you use them as compliments. I am having a hard time determining where the upsampling takes place in the Amarra chain, i assume it is a software, not hardware application. If this is true, i would assume you can turn it off or use it instead of the Scarlatti? thoughts would be appreciated.
BH
Steven, you can ignore my last post. I concurrently wrote to dCS and shore enough they were back to me within a few minutes. I must say that their customer service is simply the BEST (and David Steven is brilliant)! For everyone's interest, the dCS Scarlatti Upsampler is designed to keep the computer as a simple storage device of keeping bits. I am not sharp enough to paraphrase what David Stevens wrote to me so i hope i get most of this right. Their Upsampler is designed to do the upsampling in its own box using their proprietary ring technology. However, more important to this conversation, they set up the USB to be an “Asynchronous USB” (NOT to be confused with asynchronous rate conversion). In this scenario, the audio device synchronizes the audio by providing a feedback pipe to the PC/Mac. The PC/Mac then is effectively locked to the audio device, which can have a much more accurate clock and much lower jitter. In otherwords, (I think) the USB creates the equivilant of a VPN with stated bandwidth between the Upsampler and the computer. this allows the dCS clock to take over and the computer to truely be a storage device. Once in the Upsampler, then it can be a question of whether dCS product is better than the Computer/Amarra/DAC of choice. (Obviuolsy $ and value come into the equation). The one major advantage of the dCS Upsampler seems to be its anti-image filter which wouldn't be available in the Amarra soltuion.
Anyway, it is interesting the technical pursuits of these different options. the guys at dCS are incredibly sharp and i think there is merit to that route (admittedly a very expensive route).
BH,
I'm curious to know if you have considered any other options besides the dCS Scarlatti stack for the back-end/Mac transport system? I can appreciate that in the end it comes down to personal taste, but I simply can't warm up to the dCS sound. In every product I've heard, including their current offerings, they leave me unmoved by what I would characterize as very good but sterile sound. I was in Goodwins recently and compared the dCS gear to the Spectral CD player and preferred the latter. In a head to head at a dealer in Florida, I found the one box Meitner CDSA far superior to the much costlier dCS stack. I want to create a similar Mac based system capable of driving 176 HiRez files through my main system. I am intrigued by the Playback Designs unit (which can accept virtually any external input) since their digital engineer Andreas was involved in the design of the Meitner algorithms that I seem to favor sonically. However I don't require the redundancy of a transport so I'm stuck for the moment. Any thoughts other than dCS would be appreciated.
Easy answer Marty
You need the Playback Designs MPD5 DAC
marty817 - i have done some comparisons. Most of my comparisons were the full system was apples to apples ended up being between two redbook CD players (burmester and zanden) and the dCS Scarlati stack. I certainly can understand people saying is a sterile sound. although amazing and producing sounds often not heard before, it will not convince me throw away my turntable. I have heard the a set up with the Berkeley DAC but cannot give a true comparison as i did not like the full system as much as i did the one with the dCS (the dCS was set up first with Zanden pre-amp and tubes and then Soulution SS and Magico 5; whereby the Berekely was Burmester and the Grand Utopia EM III). So both very serious systems capable of showing off the system but i seemed to prefer the Magico's to the Grand Utopia's and that might have prejudiced my position.
I appreciate your comments and need to think about it seriously as i am moving forward with a purchase. What i have always appreciated with dCS is that they stay cutting edge and their software upgrades are the easiest in the industry and their service is excellent, any issue (or question and they are on the phone or email immediately). Now ultimately, this contributes but it is the sound that matters. I think on this issue, the type of music influences me quite a bit. I am a big tube fan but ultimately went with solid state. it has to do with the fact that most of the music i am listening to is Rock, vocals and blues guitar. truley, if i could, i owuld have a complete different system for just classical as i do think you need the air of tubes when listening to classical, but that same air is sometimes too much for rock. with dCS it might be some of the same (i am not defending it and will definitely try some of your recommendations above before purchasing) but witht those rock and female vocals i feel that the dCS might get it more exact - just my opinion. willl look at the Playback and come back you.
Looking at the Playback technology, it appears they are accomplishing a very similar effect as the dCS upsampler in forcing the computer to be a dumb terminal in terms of sychronizing the signal - i.e. removing jitter by eliminating the computers clock. What is the price point of the Playback equipment? i would guess they are more competitive than the dCS equipment?
Player/DAC is $15K
DAC alone is $10K
The only input it lacks is Firewire but has all others
I've got the player/DAC. Still burning it in, but I can highly recommend it. I have heard most of the contenders at the same price point in my own system, except for the Meridian, and much prefer the Playback. I've also not heard the full stack dCS, but that's another budget at over double the price.
Hi BH
I have a dCS stack with Audio Research Monoblocks and a Martin Logan Statement e2. So I ripped a CD using ExactCopy onto my server (FLAC codec) and streamed it into the dCS DAC. I was optimistic but unfortunately there is no comparison. It was miles apart. I support the theory of streaming data from a server but dCS does something in the transport that makes the music sound terrific. Dunno what it is. They say it is upsampling but there is something else going on in there.Comparing my McCormack Universal Disc Player to the streaming into the dCS DAC the sound was similar.
So my take on the matter is : If you are going high end with dCS then just use the whole dCS system. You are losing out by not using the transport. If you have less than go with streaming into a DAC
John
can we get back on topic please?
JohnFrind-
did you use the dCS Upsampler or was it straight to the DAC. my understanding is that the Upsampler will take the redbook cd 16/44.1 to the DAC in a similar way as the Transport does. in otherwords, if you went straight from the computer to DAC you miss one level of upsampling. this is only achieved in the Upsampler (from computer to Upsampler to DAC) or in the Transport (Transport to DAC). I spoke to dCS about using Amarra as mentioned by Steven Stone above (the software portion). they said they prefer to do all of their upsampling outside the computer so to create a jitter free environment (similar to the Playback by pushing the computer to be a dumb terminal and all clocking in external equipment). But they said the Amarra is interesting as it can automatically sort the native files which could sovle a problem that the dCS Upsampler currently has; namely, you have sort your music by resolution or risk having the wrong settings on the dCS (e.g. all high rez need to be in their own play list and the Upsampler then needs to be put on appropriate settings). they are testing Amarra now to see if this is a nice way to automate the whole process on both sides (obviously only the software portion).
I have a question: if this whole Apple Lossless thing is supposed to save space, so says Apple, why is the bit size so large? This one song is 9 MB mp3, but like 18 MB for Apple Lossless.
Post new comment