iTunes stealing my WAV's

You have got iTunes set to organise your music files .. also WAV doesn't support ID3 Tags so iTunes hasn't got a clue about the artist, album title, etc., I avoid WAV for this reason. Amiga Interchange File Format or AIFF is identical to WAV except that it works nicely with iTunes. All of the lossless format send music data out the S/PDIF or USB port send out identical bitstreams.

However, we hear what we hear and if you are sold on WAV then I don't think iTunes/XLD is the best combination for you. If you rip with iTunes there will not a problem, if you use Decibel as a player there will not be a problem. 

If you go to iTunes :: Preferences :: Advanced and uncheck the option to Keep iTunes Media Folder Organised then this should solve your problem. 

XLD is a good ripper, but I rip to ALAC and with a Mac Mini into Naim DAC cannot hear a difference. 

Lots of people hereon, transcode to WAV, which a Naim player turns into PCM to play. My Mac Mini cuts out the middle man and turns ALAC or AIFF in to PCM ... so what ever format I use the DAC gets them same thing in its buffer. This probably why in my system there is no difference. If you use a Naim streamer then this may account for the difference you are hearing.

Hi Kage, what system are you using ? I also use ND5XS and cannot tell the difference between Flac and AIFF nor ALAC.

Cheers,

Iver

UnitiServe rips onto wav. You have a very nice system, so I can understand you hera differences, unfortunately I do not. I woud suggest you try AIFF which is zero-compressed lossless but - other than WAV - allows albumart tagging etc. It might help you, but I understand you still hear differences. I rip in Flac and have Assett (now available on Mac, you might want to try it) transcode it on the fly onto wav, meaning my ND5XS receives the files as if they were FLAC. Works very, very well

Iver

Stating that the same file format ripped with different software sounds different is a new dimension of nonsense altogether. Call me a spoilsport, ignorant or intolerant or all of that, it is still nonsense!

Where do you live?

I think ignorant would be the best qualification

Berkshire, but I don't think my mother would like me bringing strange men home! I'll ask her...

I found this though on a website (macworld). Maybe it explains the difference between what I hear:

'Many people like to get the best possible rips of their CDs. iTunes does a pretty good job, and its Use Error Correction When Reading Audio CDs option (in the Import Settings areas) lets iTunes perform basic error correction, but to do the best job, you’ll need another application.

If you make an “accurate rip”—verifying ripped tracks against an Internet database—you can be sure that the resulting files are bit-perfect copies of the music on your CDs. The free XLD, or X Lossless Decoder, offers this type of ripping, and compares the resulting files with the AccurateRip database. This slows down ripping, but you’ll have perfect files at the end.'

I'm not here to argue, just decide on the right format for the setup I have and management that I want. So far WAV's sound the best via XLD. I like the use of iTunes though and the way it manages files. With XLD I would have to do everything manually.

Well, you're safe from me in Berkshire for the moment.

True, iTunes is rather lax in its error correction. I have even been able to rip CDs in iTunes that wouldn't rip in foobar. But they all use the same codecs for encoding the files. If the CD is not damaged or scratch, the results should be bit-identical. So any sonic difference would be quite miraculous to me. But ... whatever .... I am also not here to argue.

Have you tried ALAC? The problem with WAV files is that they cannot be tagged, or only to a very limited extend and only with some programmes. So even though WAVs may sound best to you, they are the worst option with regard to convenience. 

FLACs are absolutely useless if you are using iTunes as a player/server/library manager. iTunes cannot handle FLACs. So you're basically stuck with either WAV, AIFF or ALAC.

Kage,

I hear differences between uncompressed flac and wav and prefer the latter, because it is better quality sound that you get out.

Some people believe there is no difference between lossless formats, because some software has 'proved' there is no difference in the bits recorded. The inappropriate phrases 'bit perfect' and 'identical' are usually bandied about. 

There clearly is a difference as both you and I hear it and a lot of those nice people at Naim do, as well. Those who cannot grasp that the encoding/decoding of data is just as likely to create differences as say speaker cables, or cd transport mechanisms, are entitled to their views, parochial as they may be. 

If you have an option don't use iTunes to rip. It's like Windows media and tries to control what you do, thinking it knows best. It doesn't. Choose something that meets your priorities, not it's own. Iver makes a good suggestion now that a beta version of asset is available for mac. It quite happily manages tags with wav files ( and dbpoweramp is a little company - makes you wonder how Apple with their billions in the bank can't manage it).

Whatever you go with, happy listening and trust Naim and your ears. You just know it makes sense.

Andy 

Andy, more to your point, the way an audio signal is derived is from many more aspects than 'just' the reconstructed PCM used by the digital to analogue conversion system. Sometimes over simplified model type descriptions used in sales collateral of how things work really are a little bit removed from reality. However reality in this area of engineering is often not convenient and usually not easy for the layman to understand....

I've also had the demo and heard that wav was better by an obvious and clear margin than flac.

This was on an NDS-552-555 system.

Theoretically - if nothing else is being interjected - there should be no difference.

The explanation I was given is that the rendering device has to work a lot harder to extract it and you are hearing the feed-through interferrence from the digital supply and also associated RF and consequent IMD.

Unfortunately, this is not unreasonable, given the high sensitivity, relatively high impedance (at RF) and dynamic range involved in D to A conversion - you want everything dead quiet if possible.

I was quite annoyed to hear the effect, but it was definitely there as both a high-frequency harshness and significant loss of low-level detail. Given it does exist - if you want the best result, then use wav.

Another manufacturer's streamer has exactly the same fault - although they claim there is no difference. Unfortunately, you need to take a listen and convince yourself one way or another.

DB.

Thanks Simon. Well put, I may have been a trifle condescending with the 'parochial' comment. 

I noted a similar difference between ALAC and AIFF in iTunes. There was no difference between AIFF and WAV and so all my files are AIFF now, even those that were WAV..

ATB from George