Alpine CD w/ Digital Out vs. iPod with Lossless Files
#11
Big Content" Is Strangling American Innovation
#12
what the hell are you talking about, lossless is like a CD. Take a WAV file that you ripped from a CD and zip it (compress), the 70MB become a 40MB file and if you uncompress it and do a CRC check on the file it will match so there's no loss, meaning "lossless" , flac use the same principle, it use a compression algorithm that doesn't remove anything to the original.
Now, the implementation of the "codec hardware" use to decompress the "lossless" file in the HU can have an impact on sound quality but the same problem can be applied to the CD DAC too.
Also if you take a lossy file (mp3) and convert it to lossless, what have been remove before will not magically reappear, so the best sound you will get from this file is the mp3 sound.
So to recap, if the true lossless file sound different from the CD, it's the HU that change the sound.
Now, the implementation of the "codec hardware" use to decompress the "lossless" file in the HU can have an impact on sound quality but the same problem can be applied to the CD DAC too.
Also if you take a lossy file (mp3) and convert it to lossless, what have been remove before will not magically reappear, so the best sound you will get from this file is the mp3 sound.
So to recap, if the true lossless file sound different from the CD, it's the HU that change the sound.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless
Last edited by Denonite; 04-05-2011 at 10:41 PM.
#13
Listen for yourself. When you put the songs through a high end, low distortion sound system, you CAN hear the difference. I'm not alone on that and there IS a reason for that.
Some think the loss in SQ may be caused in the process of decompressing of the lossless file by your DAC. I have done a lot of reading on this subject. The reason for the loss of SQ isn't entirely clear, but A LOT of audiophiles agree it exists.
It makes complete sense. A song doesn't go from 1411kpbs to ~1100kbps or less without some information being lost. It's just less obvious than a 320kbps or less MP3.
Some think the loss in SQ may be caused in the process of decompressing of the lossless file by your DAC. I have done a lot of reading on this subject. The reason for the loss of SQ isn't entirely clear, but A LOT of audiophiles agree it exists.
It makes complete sense. A song doesn't go from 1411kpbs to ~1100kbps or less without some information being lost. It's just less obvious than a 320kbps or less MP3.
#15
^^after you read the wikipedia link...go to this one as it explains the pitfalls most audiophiles fall into with regards to lossless vs cd, so no point re-iterating:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...hp/t54961.html
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...hp/t54961.html
Last edited by Denonite; 04-05-2011 at 11:10 PM.
#16
I read another thread on the topic. If lossless files sound the same to you, then stick with them. I hear the difference, so I'm using AIFF encoding from here on out. It's not my head unit either. The Alpine CDA-117 24bit DAC is as good as it gets.
#18
I think the basic problem is that most "audiophiles" or enthusiasts don't understand how compression works..they assume that if it's compressed, it's automatically lost something...that's only true if it's a "lossy" format like mp3 or aac etc...when a file is compressed using lossless systems, absolutely nothing is lost, the comprssion codec just assigns certain values that are common between all files and removes those...leaving only the essential (different) portions of the file. This is what makes it smaller. When it's decompressed, those known common portions are added back to the essential portions to give you the complete file. Think of it this way; we need to store credit card numbers, and all those numbers have a common 6 digit initial marker. well instead of storing all 15 numbers, we just need to store the 9 numbers after the common 6 digits. when we retreive the information, the codec will replace the 6 digits in the number stream and you have the exact number you started with...that's lossless compression..mathematically identical. Therefore, if 2 files are mathematically identical (assuming that user error hasn't corrupted the info or there are problems with your hardware), then the files can not sound different played throught he same equipment as they are identical...any difference is in the mind of the user..placebo effect.
Last edited by Denonite; 04-06-2011 at 10:33 AM.
#19
there is no difference between lossless and cd. they are mathematically the same, simply a more efficient way of packaging them.
personally i don't find any difference. i was leary myself using lossless on my ipod, but after listening to countless hours back to back on my P99, lossless = cd. there is no 'clipped bass' or 'clearer highs'. its all pschyoacoustic in my opinion.
and the industry IS beggining to use these technologies. take a look at some of the high end decks offering DAC bypassing capabilities to utilize such formats on IPODs etc.
personally i don't find any difference. i was leary myself using lossless on my ipod, but after listening to countless hours back to back on my P99, lossless = cd. there is no 'clipped bass' or 'clearer highs'. its all pschyoacoustic in my opinion.
and the industry IS beggining to use these technologies. take a look at some of the high end decks offering DAC bypassing capabilities to utilize such formats on IPODs etc.
#20
go to youtube and check out the audio myth workshop.. that will answer all your questions about sound quality with mp3, aiff, bit torrents, ect.. basically we cant hear any difference when compressed.. and they prove it.. sorry but its like amps sound different.. every physics major says they dont but every guy who dumps 10k on a sq amp says they do.. i think this is going to happen here as well... but these guys are the best in the world at what they do.. so watch the video and get give me some comments..