FLAC and Apple Lossless are not really lossless?

[lulimet]

I have my CD collection ripped to WAV, ALAC, and 320Kbps MP3 (a copy of each format for each song). I wanted to see how the file size differs from each format and I ripped one of the CDs into FLAC so I have the three lossless codecs to compare to each other.

I used the same song for each format. The WAV file is 45.5 mb, the ALAC file 35.5 mb, and the FLAC file 35.5 mb.
Why is there a 10 mb difference between WAV and ALAC/FLAC file sizes? Shouldn't the file sizes be the same as WAV?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-ix_B95nc[/youtube]

 

[Huey]

Because ALAC and FLAC are compressed files, just done in a way so as not to lose any information. I don't know about ALAC, but with FLAC you can choose how much to compress it with 8 different settings. The more you compress it though, the longer it takes to rip it, but they all are still going to be lossless files.

 

[PaulyT]

Right "compression" is not the same thing as "loss". FLAC are compressed, but not lossy - when you expand the data, it ends up identical to the original. Like putting a document in a .zip file.

 

[lulimet]

I see, thanks fellas. I learn something new everyday.

 

[Rope]

I FLAC'D a gal once, she was pissed!

Rope

 

[Lone Stranger]

I FLAC'D a gal once, she was pissed!

Rope

She gave you a lot of flak? Sorry, I am not a comedian.

 

[Yesfan70]

Right "compression" is not the same thing as "loss". FLAC are compressed, but not lossy - when you expand the data, it ends up identical to the original. Like putting a document in a .zip file.

I said the exact same thing to a friend of mine a few years back as this discussion came up over a few beers. H has tons of audio engineering experience, and he refused to believe me. The many beers and his inflated ego just wasn't going to see it any different....flac is lossy just like MP3. "compression is lossy,, you're wrong, I have all these years of ____________", blah, blah, blah..... etc. :angry-banghead:


I wanted to smack the shit out of him that night.

 

[Huey]

I FLAC'D a gal once, she was pissed!

Rope

She was pissed you had used to much compression, and it was a much smaller file than she had imagined. :eusa-whistle: :happy-smileygiantred:

 

[Yesfan70]

But at least he ripped it....ripped it good.


Hammer time!

 

[Kazaam]

Right "compression" is not the same thing as "loss". FLAC are compressed, but not lossy - when you expand the data, it ends up identical to the original. Like putting a document in a .zip file.

I said the exact same thing to a friend of mine a few years back as this discussion came up over a few beers. H has tons of audio engineering experience, and he refused to believe me. The many beers and his inflated ego just wasn't going to see it any different....flac is lossy just like MP3. "compression is lossy,, you're wrong, I have all these years of ____________", blah, blah, blah..... etc. :angry-banghead:


I wanted to smack the shit out of him that night.

That's kinda funny. Kinda sad, but funny. Anyway... I'm no expert, but I had made a bunch of 5.1 channel DTS CDs, and those things in my experience only work if your copy is bit accurate and lossless. And I was able to successfully get them to decode properly after compressing via Apple Lossless. aand thats proof enough for me, as if it wasn't fully intact all I' should hear is static white noise. But only if I encoded them using error correction to ensure bit accuracy. ALAC and sent wirelessly over wifi. Compressed, yes, like you said. Data loss? Don't think so. Mind you, the space saving of a DTS CD When using ALAC were maybe only 20 percent or so. Not as good as a regular audio CD, but helpful nonetheless . Plus it allowed me to add metadata, which wav didn't.