iTunes ripping CD music what settings ?

In terms of file format or decoded output?

File format.

As the CD and WAV are both encoded using PCM then I like to think it keeps things pure :)

Also, (with reference to decoded output) as I said there's not much (certainly not enough to differentiate the two by ear) between WAV and Apple Lossless apart from filesize.
 
There's not any quality difference between WAV and Apple Lossless, or any lossless compression that works properly. That's what lossless means!

If you encode a WAV to Apple Lossless and then decode to WAV again, you'll get an identical file.
 
My 3 years studying Sound Technology were wasted! :(;)
Why don't you just state this voodoo factor that you're alluding to?

"Pure" in computer terms will mean bit-for-bit equality in memory. Which the output of the (WAV|OtherLossless) decoding stage will be.
 
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 :cool:
 
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 :cool:

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.

lossless.png


Conclusion: whatever you were taught, any difference is in your head.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
OK, first I ripped a WAV directly from the CD using iTunes. Then I ripped the song from the CD again straight to Apple Lossless, and converted the resulting file to WAV.

lossless2.png


Still identical :)
 
:confused: It was definitely smaller when I tested it (albeit iTunes 6), so I'm putting it down to a bug in iTunes.

I'd still use WAV for universal compatibility though :p
 
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.

no one in their right mind would use apple lossless files in music production. but that wasn't what this thread was about. :p

EVH was basically inferring that apple lossless is inferior to WAV when it quite clearly isn't.
 
Last edited:
:confused: It was definitely smaller when I tested it (albeit iTunes 6), so I'm putting it down to a bug in iTunes.

If the two WAV files are the same length and the same format, then they're going to be the same size whether the quality is the same or not. A WAV of complete silence would be the same size providing it was the same length and PCM 44.1KHz 16-bit stereo.
 
Back
Top Bottom