Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: EAC vs Apple Lossless (Read 14839 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EAC vs Apple Lossless

Reply #25 –
Quote
I know the lossless is lossless is a big deal. I can invite you over and you will be amazed that it isn't true.

So you know lossless is lossless and yet lossless isn't lossless?  Brilliant.

Quote
That same drive was connected then to the Mac with machine and drive on isolation transformers to cut the line noise down.

So you also don't know the difference between analog and digital then?  Excellent.

Quote
Unless I'm still missing something.

Almost too easy to pounce on that one....

Quote
I've been involved in high end audio for 25 years either personally or professionally. You don't have to be a recording engineer to hear the difference between the EAC and Apple Lossless burns.

Well aren't you special.  Sadly, you're also wrong about absolutely everything you've said thus far.  Since nobody's that lacking in intelligence and still able to turn on a computer, the only solution is that you're a troll with very few things to do in his life.  Sad... very sad. 

And since you've apparently refused to do a bit comparison of the resultant files and show the results by linking to clips, your trolldom is further proven by your unwillingness to provide any evidence of the idiocy that you're blathering on about.

EAC vs Apple Lossless

Reply #26 –
Sorry for bringing this thread back up, but I just came across it and wanted to throw my 2cents in....

First off, it always seems the starting nature of these posts are to point out that someone is a "Sound Engineer" (usually used to try and bring up some dorks self esteem), and second that it's done on a "High End System".  First off, any "High End System" will have many ways to input from a computer without having to burn a CD.

I'm a musician and a sound tech and there hasn't been one "High End System" that doesn't have XLR, S/PDIF, USB or some sort of hook up that is better than a CD.  Otherwise it's not very "High End".

As for lossless, put the original .wav up against the lossless format in a (in this context, high end is pretty important) "High End" wav editor and see what the difference is.

One thing people dont always take into consideration is that just because a certain frequency that the human ear CAN NOT HEAR doesnt mean that the human body CAN NOT FEEL it.  Take low end bass frequencies for example.  Yes the human ear can not hear below, lets say 15hz, the defined maximum lower limit.  I gurantee you that a bass line thumping around at 10hz will still be "felt" by a human, usually leading to leg spasms, that some people call dancing?

Now I'm not an expert in the lossless process, but do believe they still remove some frequencies that they deem that humans can not hear???  How else do they get them smaller without taking data away? Or does that data they take away from the file get replaced by the player when the files is played?  Like comon frequencies that will be in every song can be removed from the file, but the player will have to put them back in?

I always thought "Lossless" was a subjective term, because in most situations and to most people nothing is lost, but in reality, how does a file become smaller?  Wouldnt a true lossless instantly render the .wav or whatever bigger files useless?  In essense they would be the same thing, just one would be smaller, so what would be the point of keeping the original format?

Anyways, just my thoughts...

EAC vs Apple Lossless

Reply #27 –
Quote from: mgray on
Sorry for bringing this thread back up, but I just came across it and wanted to throw my 2cents in....

Anyways, just my thoughts...


Then, since the data on every hard drive is encoded using the same "lossless" process, computers can't work and you couldn't have sent the message!
Glass half full!

EAC vs Apple Lossless

Reply #28 –
Quote from: mgray on
...
I always thought "Lossless" was a subjective term, because in most situations and to most people nothing is lost, but in reality, how does a file become smaller?  Wouldnt a true lossless instantly render the .wav or whatever bigger files useless?  In essense they would be the same thing, just one would be smaller, so what would be the point of keeping the original format?

Anyways, just my thoughts...


It isn't a subjective term.  A lossless encoder is a lossless encoder, this means that absolutely zero data is lost.  Lossy encoders can achieve perceptual transparency which means that a user may not be able to hear a difference between that file and a lossless file.  That is different, a lossless file retains the exact quality of the source CD.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  A lossless file can achieve data compression (ie not lossy compression) in the same way that WinZip and WinRar work.  Those programs compress files without losing any of the data.  You use the program to compress the files then you use the program to open them again.  That is exactly how lossless works, you use the encoder to compress the files and the decoder to open them right back up.  No loss of data but compression is achieved.  If you want more information then you can Wiki the terms lossless, WinRar, and WinZip.

Lossless files are actually preferred over the raw WAV files because lossless files take up less space and can carry track ID information (track artist, album, year, genre, etc.).  That is why they are so good and should be used for backup purposes.  Lossless encoders were made so that people wouldn't have to keep WAV backups of their music without tags or any type of lossy compression.

Edit: clarification

EAC vs Apple Lossless

Reply #29 –
Quote from: mgray on
[...]
As for lossless, put the original .wav up against the lossless format in a (in this context, high end is pretty important) "High End" wav editor and see what the difference is.
[...]
Now I'm not an expert in the lossless process, but do believe they still remove some frequencies that they deem that humans can not hear???
[...]
I always thought "Lossless" was a subjective term...
[...]

Maybe you're confusing the terms "lossy" and "lossless". Lossless compression formats are decoded back to the original waveform during playback or when opened in a WAV editor. Therefore any WAV editor will prove the files to be identical, no frequencies nor any data were removed, and it's not a matter of subjectivity. Only lossy compression formats remove frequencies, and use psychoacoustics and such which permanently discards data.

EAC vs Apple Lossless

Reply #30 –
Quote
Now I'm not an expert in the lossless process, but do believe they still remove some frequencies that they deem that humans can not hear???

No, they don't, as has already been shown in this very thread. Lossless by definition does not lose a single bit of the original data. Because of this a losslessly encoded file will always sound 100% exactly the same as the original wave.

Quote
How else do they get them smaller without taking data away?

It's called entropy coding. Explained short and simple: Find long repeating bit sequences and replace them with a shorter code. Also store which code stands for which bit sequence. On decoding reverse the process. Zip, Rar & Co also work like this. But lossless codecs are taylor made for the properties of audio to achieve a higher compression than a more general algorithm.

Quote
I always thought "Lossless" was a subjective term

"Lossless" (is the same as the original) really is an objective term. The respective subjective term is "transparent" (sounds exactly as the original to a specific listener in a specific situation).

Quote
In essense they would be the same thing, just one would be smaller, so what would be the point of keeping the original format?

In fact, that's what lossless is used for. To delete the original, keep the smaller copy and still be able to reconstruct the original 100% if needed.
 

EAC vs Apple Lossless

Reply #31 –
How about re-ripping the burned tracks, then comparing the MD5 of the original wav and the re-ripped track? I wonder if perhaps your burner is introducing errors during the write process.

Another thing to try would be comparing the MD5 of the original WAV to the de-coded WAV from the Apple Lossless file to see if there are any errors introduced there (doubtful).