Portable Headphone User - Apple Wav or Lossless

Print Page | Close Window

Apple Wav or Lossless

Printed From: Graham Slee Hifi System Components
Category: Headphone Audio
Forum Name: Portable Headphone User
Forum Description: Technical Q&A, hints and tips
URL: https://www.hifisystemcomponents.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=814
Printed Date: 27 Mar 2026 at 12:35am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Apple Wav or Lossless

Posted By: pinkerj
Subject: Apple Wav or Lossless
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2010 at 6:07pm

I do a fair amount of my listening on the go through my ipod and recently got a voyager

I have read various articles about FLAC being better than Apple's Lossless format

Looking for opinion on this

Also has anyone compared songs on WAV to Lossless and have an opinion on this?

Thanks

Replies:

Posted By: mrarroyo
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2010 at 8:29pm

It is like comparing chocolate to vanilla, depends on what YOU like/want. I use iPods and iPhones so I use Apple Lossless.

-------------
Miguel

Posted By: pinkerj
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2010 at 10:45pm

Thanks

I agree it is your personal choice

I've got a ipods as well but read that an opinion that flac was a better format -I have not got it so I do not know so was interested to hear other's thoughts.

You can use WAV with itunes/Ipods but again was interested to hear if others thoughts on this

Posted By: mrarroyo
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2010 at 2:24pm

Lets remember how you and I use these files ... on the go. Even if Flac was indeed better by 10% in a control environment with top of the line dacs, amps, speakers/headphones the difference would disappear when you are in a noisy street corner or plane using a less than ideal studio gear. My point, either will do fine. Cheers.

-------------
Miguel

Posted By: J2004823
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2010 at 4:00pm

1) I totally agree with Mrarroyo's point on the listening environment. Differences between lossless formats are subtle to the most, if our gears can produce any. Those differences will be hardly perceivable when on the go.

2) FLAC is technically more advanced than AIFF. However, that is not the same as claiming FLAC will be superior when it comes to listening experience.

3) Is FLAC also a better file format than M4A? I have no idea. Both are lossless formats supporting compression. I suppose we need many ABX tests to draw a conclusion here, if there can be a conclusion.

4) The revealing power of the device often matters more than the subtle difference between lossless formats. Most portable devices are simply not capable of reproduce any differences between lossless formats.

I use FLAC to archive my music CDs, compression level is around 4 and 5 (compression can be as little as 0, or as much as 8). As for my iPod, I use WAV for maximum compatibility since my computers are running Windows. The obvious compromise is the absence of cover arts on my iPod.

Unless heavily invested in a Hi-End system, it's safe to consider FLAC & M4A as no perceivable audio differences.

Seems I was just repeating Marroyo, in somewhat different terms :)

-------------
Sennheiser HD 280 Pro / iPod Classic 160GB (7G)

Posted By: 88_King
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2010 at 8:47pm

I also agree with Mrarroyo. I have an ipod touch 32Gb, with 2,300 songs in AAC 320kbps format taking up 20Gb of space. I can't tell any differences between Apple lossless and AAC 320kpbs on my Sennheiser IE8 and NUforce icon mobile DAC/amp which I use for enjoying music on the go.

I'd suggest using AAC encoding is the most efficient format for the ipod. Unless you have an ipod classic than you have enough space to use which ever format you want.

-------------
AIFF source + Cambridge DacMagic + Solo II + Sennheiser HD800 = Music heaven :-)