Have your say & ask the experts

Can someone please explain what the difference is between the two formats. I understand a bit about CD, i.e. PCM at 44.1Khz or whatever the sample rate is. I assume that lossless files are those that use the same bit rate as the original master (which I assume is higher than CD format?). Thus, if the source was digitally mastered, then strictly speaking they cannot be lossless, as they are still digital pulses and not a continous analogue data stream? So does the term lossless simply mean no compression from the original master, or something else...? The former is my understanding simply when talking about ripping .wav files off a CD into say itunes, WMP or EAC. Ultimately at best they can only give a 100% identical copy of the CD source data, or maybe with some read errors, but never better.

 

Lossless refers to new compression formats that have surfaced that are able to reduce the digital file size in a manner that can be reproduced putting all of the correct bits back into place with no loss in quality over the original digital file.  The first Lossless compression format was DVD-Audio's MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) and now we have FLAC, Apple Lossless, and Windows Lossless.  The end result is a 3.5 minute song contained in a 25.4 MB file as opposed to a 35.4 MB file in WAV/PCM format.  This helps with storage of large collections of music at original quality, but is obviously still quite a bit larger than any of your "lossy" MP3/AAC/WMA formats even at their highest bitrates.

SteveR750:

Ultimately at best they can only give a 100%
identical copy of the CD source data, or maybe with some read errors,
but never better.

One would think so.

Without explaining (sorry) the technical in and outs - because I would get them wrong no doubt - lossless through a decent budget DAC sounds better than many budget and some mid level CD players. I will leave others to explain that if it can be explained.

I had to spend out on a CD player that now costs £895 brand new to significantly improve on a £180 DAC playing lossless from iTunes via a USB cable. This was proved to me via a Naim Nait XS with Rega RS1, Rega RS3 and PMC FB1i speakers and the amp I have now. (Nait 5i)

In my old (pre April) system with the Arcam Solo-Mini,  the DAC (iTunes/USB from laptop) comprehensively out-performed the built in CD player to such an embarassing degree that even 256kbps AAC iTunes downloads were noticeably more enjoyable. In fact, even a Fubar USB II DAC comfortably outperformed the Solo-Mini's CD player with lossless files.

I would say (all else being equal in a reasonably revealing system) that the likes of a Beresford TC-7520 and/or CA DacMagic will trounce CD players up to around the level of a Rega Apollo or similarly good CDPs.

This is from my own experience of hearing all the above either at home, during in depth demo sessions or at length on a friend's system.

The last bit of the OP is true. Lossless means no change in information between source (e.g. CD) and file (wav, flac, ..). It is then up to the DAC to make a decent analogue signal out of it. Lossless can be uncompressed - by definition - (e.g. wav) or compressed (flac, wma), in the latter case the original data can be retrieved at playback bitperfect by the software codec.  Indeed, if a master is 96Hz/24bits then the conversion to normal redbook CD at 44.1Hz/16bits is already a lossy step, that can never be reversed. There are already some download sites that offer music in the higher resolution and SACD of course also has a higher digital quality. 

chebby:

SteveR750:

Ultimately at best they can only give a 100%
identical copy of the CD source data, or maybe with some read errors,
but never better.

One would think so.

Without explaining (sorry) the technical in and outs - because I would get them wrong no doubt - lossless through a decent budget DAC sounds better than many budget and some mid level CD players. I will leave others to explain that if it can be explained.

I had to spend out on a CD player that now costs £895 brand new to significantly improve on a £180 DAC playing lossless from iTunes via a USB cable. This was proved to me via a Naim Nait XS with Rega RS1, Rega RS3 and PMC FB1i speakers and the amp I have now. (Nait 5i)

In my old (pre April) system with the Arcam Solo-Mini,  the DAC (iTunes/USB from laptop) comprehensively out-performed the built in CD player to such an embarassing degree that even 256kbps AAC iTunes downloads were noticeably more enjoyable. In fact, even a Fubar USB II DAC comfortably outperformed the Solo-Mini's CD player with lossless files.

I would say (all else being equal in a reasonably revealing system) that the likes of a Beresford TC-7520 and/or CA DacMagic will trounce CD players up to around the level of a Rega Apollo or similarly good CDPs.

This is from my own experience of hearing all the above either at home, during in depth demo sessions or at length on a friend's system.

OK so the explanation is as I thought, its a low compression or compression free format, based upon the orignal source file. I am familiar with file transfers between CD and compressed and the WMP / itunes lossless file types, but I have always assumed that they are inferior as there is still some opportunity for errors in the ripping / downloading and conversion processes.

 @ your highlighted commenst - how can lossless be better than the source? And if the cource is either CD or downloaded files, then how can they be better than a CD, since downlaoded music is normally supplied as compressed files (mp3 etc), unless you ripped from a CD in the first place using a PC, and  I simply cant believe that a CD drive in a laptop is as accurate as a half decent CD player. So, if the best availbale source is CD, then how can a PC based system with its $5 servo be as accurate let alone better than a bespoke unit such as that in a Cyrus? Or am I missing something in the available quality of downloadable music files?????

No you're not missing the point on downloaded files, which tend to be (though are not exclusively) 320k at best. However, I've found (and I think chebby has too, though he can speak for himself) that if you take care ripping a CD in a lossless format to your PC, the resultant files (played through a quality DAC) can sound better than even very good CD players, because all the error correction's been done already, rather than having to do it at 500rpm as is the case in a CD player.

JohnDuncan:

No you're not missing the point on downloaded files, which tend to be (though are not exclusively) 320k at best. However, I've found (and I think chebby has too, though he can speak for himself) that if you take care ripping a CD in a lossless format to your PC, the resultant files (played through a quality DAC) can sound better than even very good CD players, because all the error correction's been done already, rather than having to do it at 500rpm as is the case in a CD player.

Aha, OK!....but how can WMP, itunes make a better correction of the potentially bigger errors off your PC CR ROM drive whether done "on the fly" or not, surely errors are corrected using the same interpolation algorithm between missed data points. And if its because of the need to do it in real time, then why cant a conventional CDP simply read the data and buffer it, thereby making error correction prior to streaming into the DAC??

SteveR750:

And if its because of the need to do it in real time

It is...

SteveR750:

then why cant a conventional CDP simply read the data and buffer it, thereby making error correction prior to streaming into the DAC??

Good question! It's been touched on before, but looking at the threads that might have had it in, they all seem to quickly descend into the CD player vs Computer Based music argument on both sides and it's too late for me to be dealing with that I'm afraid! In case you're interested though, here's one I've found which touched on it.

 

In itunes select View and then View Options and then check the box Sample Rate, the rate, no matter how the music was imported/downloaded is 44.1kHz.

Having listened over the past year (as I set up a computer based setup) to CDs, imported CDs at different bit rates, downloads at 128kbps and then Plus off itunes along with Amazon's VBR and Spotify's Ogg Vorbis streaming I would say that the rate is not important. I back that up with recently taking a comparison test between lower bit rates and not hearing a difference.

IHMO how well a track is recorded in the first place is the key to good SQ. Second is your ears and how well they work (I have a touch of tinnitus). Third is how good your setup is and its characteristics. Last, but by no means least is the means of encoding the music. For example, I find Spotify is the best sound with its format/my setup/my ears and it is clear what was well recorded in the first place.

I honestly think that discussions about bit rate as an indicator of SQ are missing a whole load of other factors that are more important.

idc:

In itunes select View and then View Options and then check the box Sample Rate, the rate, no matter how the music was imported/downloaded is 44.1kHz.

Having listened over the past year (as I set up a computer based setup) to CDs, imported CDs at different bit rates, downloads at 128kbps and then Plus off itunes along with Amazon's VBR and Spotify's Ogg Vorbis streaming I would say that the rate is not important. I back that up with recently taking a comparison test between lower bit rates and not hearing a difference.

IHMO how well a track is recorded in the first place is the key to good SQ. Second is your ears and how well they work (I have a touch of tinnitus). Third is how good your setup is and its characteristics. Last, but by no means least is the means of encoding the music. For example, I find Spotify is the best sound with its format/my setup/my ears and it is clear what was well recorded in the first place.

I honestly think that discussions about bit rate as an indicator of SQ are missing a whole load of other factors that are more important.

Agreed, but this is simply the same point I am making - if it's not there in the first place you can't improve it. Assuming the same recording but in different formats, then unless you can download "better than CD" bit rate, then its impossible for it be improved upon by using inferior processing sources (such as PC hardrives or using compressed file transfer). I don't know if you can download "better than CD" files, if so then I'm all up for looking into PC based music.

The main point again, is that even the best CD players are correcting data errors using guessing algorithms (once the CD player has past that byte of data, it has to move on to the next, else you would hear a gap in the sound), whereas the likes of iTunes etc can re-read the byte until it is happy that it has read it correctly.

This is why when ripping audio from a CD, you will only be able to do it at around 14-speed, instead of the 50-speed that the CDROM is capable of.

This error-free stream provided by the hard disk is the main reason why it can sound better - the DAC or soundcard has a far better stream of data to work with.

And yes, the likes of Naim and Linn are now selling high-definition audio (24bit/96KHz or above) from their website. I think Linn even offer a couple of free sampler tracks.

Hope this helps...

is there also anything to do with budget? as in the time and money spent on the stand alone DAC will be much greater than that spent on that part of a CDP. 

I for one have recently tried both sources on my AVI 9.1s as I couldnt quite believe it either. That a wireless stream to my squeezebox of a FLAC file played though the onboard DAC/AMPs of my speakers (optical input) would match the sound quality of my Arcam Alphas 7se used the same way. 

But it did. in fact it seemed a little more clear. I also agree. that the quality of the recording is WAY more important that bitrate.

SteveR750:

Aha, OK!....but how can WMP, itunes make a better correction of the potentially bigger errors off your PC CR ROM drive whether done "on the fly" or not, surely errors are corrected using the same interpolation algorithm between missed data points. And if its because of the need to do it in real time, then why cant a conventional CDP simply read the data and buffer it, thereby making error correction prior to streaming into the DAC??

That's why I bought myself a dedicated Plextor Premium CD-RW (not cheap) to rip my CD's rather than using £15 DVD-RW, plus you don't use WMP or iTunes to rip, you use something like EAC or my preferred option, dBPowerAmp. I rip to WMA Lossless, you'd be surprised how different a music track sounds when ripped with dBPowerAmp or EAC compared to WMP, it shouldn't sound different, but it does to my ears.

So with a quality lossless file, we've read that it can sound fantastic with a wadia dock connected to the digital output from an ipod then into your DAC/Processor, putting many CD players to shame.

Can this be better than playing from a much cheaper external hard-drive or even drives included in DVDRs or  TVs (I have a Pionneer Kuro) connected Optically? Would they be using an external DAC?

I would really like a What Hi-Fi test comparing playback of lossless files from USB sticks, connected Hard Drives, Laptop/PCs, Consumer TV/DVDr drives, NAS, Ipod/Wadia etc, all into the same DAC/Amp. And then compared to Sonos/Logitech wirelessly

It's a long time since I've owned a high-end CD player, but I seem to remember it sounding better than my lossless music collection, there's a lot of 'noise' going on inside a PC. But for me, it wasn't relaxing listening to CD's, having to keep getting up and down changing a CD after playing one track. With Windows Media Centre, my whole music collection is at the control of my remote control and and I can go stright from Motörhead to Mozart if the mood takes me. The ability to create playlists on the fly is worth sacrificing a bit of music quality IMO.