Fixed.
Although there's not much in it to be fair.
you are joking right? please tell me you're joking....

Fixed.
Although there's not much in it to be fair.
you are joking right? please tell me you're joking....![]()
"best sound quality: WAV"
"Although there's not much in it to be fair"
So what's your point again?
In terms of file format or decoded output?
Why don't you just state this voodoo factor that you're alluding to?My 3 years studying Sound Technology were wasted!![]()
I just don't trust the Apple Lossless codec.. the filesize seems too small in comparison to AIFF or WAVs. If you want to use it for audio production, go ahead.
I see what you're saying but I'm stuck in my ways![]()
To test, I ripped a song from CD to WAV. Then I converted the WAV to Apple Lossless and then back to WAV. Then I compared the two.
http://upload.mattus.co.uk/data/ocuk/lossless.png[ /IMG]
Conclusion: whatever you were taught, any difference is in your head.[/QUOTE]
Try again, but convert:
1) Track01 from CD to WAV
2) Track 01 from CD to Apple Lossless
Then compare the 2 files. I'm guessing either the Apple lossless one is more efficient or it's dropping data through quantisation.
I'm inclined to agree with EVH although I don't know why. I'd rather use an uncompressed format if I was working on audio for production purposes than use a compressed format, whether that format is lossless or not. I know it's illogical (captain), it's just a gut feeling.
Why bother compressing/uncompressing something when you can work on the uncompressed file? Sure, convert it to lossless at the end but during production, work on the uncompressed file.
It was definitely smaller when I tested it (albeit iTunes 6), so I'm putting it down to a bug in iTunes.