Hydrogenaudio Forums > Any difference between FLAC and Apple Lossless, in terms of sound qual

zzzoong

Dec 27 2006, 16:27

I can see there are pros and cons for these two formats, most of which are related to such functional aspects as enconding/decoding speed, software and hardware compatibility, tagging and etc.

What about sound quality? Can I safely assume that there is no substantial difference in terms of the end quality (when properly played) between these two formats? (or across lossless formats including WavPack, Monkey's, Shorten, ...)

ShowsOn

Dec 27 2006, 16:32

QUOTE (zzzoong @ Dec 28 2006, 00:27)

I can see there are pros and cons for these two formats, most of which are related to such functional aspects as enconding/decoding speed, software and hardware compatibility, tagging and etc.

What about sound quality? Can I safely assume that there is no substantial difference in terms of the end quality (when properly played) between these two formats? (or across lossless formats including WavPack, Monkey's, Shorten, ...)

Lossless, is lossless, is lossless.

A lossless file, once decoded, is mathematically identical to the WAV file that it was encoded from. They sound the same because they are the same.

Gigapod

Dec 27 2006, 16:33

QUOTE (zzzoong @ Dec 27 2006, 16:27)

I can see there are pros and cons for these two formats, most of which are related to such functional aspects as enconding/decoding speed, software and hardware compatibility, tagging and etc.

What about sound quality? Can I safely assume that there is no substantial difference in terms of the end quality (when properly played) between these two formats? (or across lossless formats including WavPack, Monkey's, Shorten, ...)

"All lossless codecs sound equal, but some sound more equal than others..."

By definition, all lossless codecs have exactly the same "sound quality" as the original PCM file. They are usually (and should be) compared on other features, i.e. use the one that suits you better, in terms of listening habits, implementation available for your particular OS, compression ratios and speed, etc.

(edit) A nasty habit of mine, it seems, a link to the excellent HA Knowledgebase:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison

boombaard

Dec 27 2006, 17:26

QUOTE (Gigapod @ Dec 27 2006, 17:33)

QUOTE (zzzoong @ Dec 27 2006, 16:27)

I can see there are pros and cons for these two formats, most of which are related to such functional aspects as enconding/decoding speed, software and hardware compatibility, tagging and etc.

What about sound quality? Can I safely assume that there is no substantial difference in terms of the end quality (when properly played) between these two formats? (or across lossless formats including WavPack, Monkey's, Shorten, ...)

"All lossless codecs sound equal, but some sound more equal than others..."

By definition, all lossless codecs have exactly the same "sound quality" as the original PCM file. They are usually (and should be) compared on other features, i.e. use the one that suits you better.

yes.. some are a bit thicker around the middle than others, whereas others again might have more than 2 armholes.

Fandango

Dec 27 2006, 19:25

Gosh, isn't there a FAQ, Wiki article or forum sticky for these kind of questions? If yes, then simply post a link and close thread.

Gigapod

Dec 27 2006, 19:33

QUOTE (Fandango @ Dec 27 2006, 19:25)

Gosh, isn't there a FAQ, Wiki article or forum sticky for these kind of questions? If yes, then simply post a link and close thread.

There is a forum sticky (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=33232) which links to the wiki, there is a wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison) and you can contribute to the FAQ!