Originally Posted by isamu

Thanks for the reply. I see what you're saying and there's a lot of educational information in your comments. But I still failed to find any evidence that playing a flac file is inferior to playing a raw AIFF file. When accessed and activated by the software player, the flac file decompresses and plays the file EXACTLY the way it would have, had it not been compressed in the first place. So how could there be any difference in sonic quality?

If you have a chance, please check out this thread.

*Why FLAC is brighter than .Wav(AIFF)*


....particularly this comment:

Originally Posted by isamu

Thanks for the reply. I see what you're saying and there's a lot of educational information in your comments. But I still failed to find any evidence that playing a flac file is inferior to playing a raw AIFF file. When accessed and activated by the software player, the flac file decompresses and plays the file EXACTLY the way it would have, had it not been compressed in the first place. So how could there be any difference in sonic quality?

If you have a chance, please check out this thread.

*Why FLAC is brighter than .Wav(AIFF)*


....particularly this comment:

Originally Posted by my06clk

I see you want to rant pointlessly about a file format that I only heard of yesterday. LOL

All I can say to you is this. If that's what you want, use it.

If you came into my recording studio with a project that was done on "Flac" files, I'd have to show you the exit.

There is a standard out there for professional and consumer Audio.

Good luck.

Originally Posted by slowrey

You have a recording studio and you "just" heard of FLAC? Something isn't right here....

Also I think the guy said the Denison GUI was primative where the hell did MAC vs. PC & FLAC vs. AIFF war come into play????

Originally Posted by slowrey

Also I think the guy said the Denison GUI was primative where the hell did MAC vs. PC & FLAC vs. AIFF war come into play????

Originally Posted by my06clk

FLAC. Obviously you've never did any mastering right?.OR you don't deal in the Pro Audio World.. Send me a list of 2 or 3 Pro Programs you know of that allow conversion to FlAC for mixing OR Mastering and I'll STFU.

But since we both live in the same city.Hit me up and maybe I'll show you how it's done in the Pros LOL..

What the guy said was Dension's gui was primitive, then he went on to mention Win-amp and another PC based interface. I was simply stating that "those" interfaces and his reasoning for installing a windows based carputer, and the fact that he was doing it to a 7 year old car was quite primitive in itself so it was all pointless typing anyway.
And I do think my reference to the MAC mini was that it would be a lot less expensive and a lot nicer interface if he went that route. Simply stated.

The rest of the tech. stuff about lossless files vs. this and that was everybody else. I know what I need to work with for what I do, and that's it.

While I have your attention, Do you get out anywhere in the ATX? You know me and a friend who sells for MB/Austin have an unofficial BENZ meet at Sullivans most every Thursday nights during happy hour. Come hang Sometimes. They usually Valet all of our cars right in the front.

We can talk shop.

Originally Posted by Skylaw

Unquestionably the Dension UI is primitive when compared to virtually any decent computer. So is the entire MB COMAND interface. Nonetheless, it works.

Still, if anyone wants to go to the expense of replacing the whole system with a carputer, that's his choice. Some folks have done it nicely.

Where did Mac vs PC and FLAC vs AIFF come into play? The FLAC vs AIFF part came from isamu's assertion of FLAC's absolute superiority over any other file format (which would, by implication, include AIFF - the original in CDs). It deserved a response. To me it's the rough equivalent of arguing that a scanned copy of the Mona Lisa is better than the original.

Mac vs PC - not much argument here over which is better. The comparison was based on my experience with "lossless" formats - and I have far more with Apple products than Windows, which was isamu's experience. However, in principle, the "lossless" formats work on the same principles. The rest was used to underscore that isamu's original assertion might be best to suit his preferences, could not stand as an absolute determination.

It was pretty plain, if you actually read the comments.

And of course, the entire discussion, except that isamu thought a carputer was better choice than the Gateway 500, is off topic. But fun.

Originally Posted by Skylaw

Even an AIFF file involves digital sampling, at a very high rate - 44.100 kHz. Fast as it is, it still does not contain every single piece of information that an analog wave does - the analog wave is continuous.

That is one reason why evan a digitally mastered CD recording of a symphony concert does not sound as good as the orchestra does in the live performance in the concert hall. In the concert hall, the music is all analog.

However, I would take issue with the assertion that a device playing a CD will always be better. First, the music that leaves the amplifier to drive the speakers is always analog. The speakers produce sound waves are always analog ("Digital rated" means they can handle the wider bandwidth and dynamic range that digital input devices can produce - power, causing heat - vice older pure analog devices). It would be more accurate to say a device playing the AIFF format will sound better than one playing any kind of compressed format, especially a "lossy" format.

There are two main influences regarding the input devices: 1) The quality of their electronics (both design and build considerations) and 2) the quality of the medium that is input to (played by) the device.

Assuming for a moment that the electronics are equal, analog input other than live (including studio) performances have been limited by the recording medium. LP records introduced hiss and other noise, and the dynamic range is somewhat limited (though the technology had gotten pretty good toward the end of vinyl's reign). Analog recordings on magnetic tape introduced hiss, and had less dynamic range than CDs - despite Dolby sound processing.

CDs, despite carrying less "information" than an analog wave form, came very close to reproducing the true wave - close enough that one could not hear the difference at 44.100 kHz - and did so with no hiss or other noise, and a tremendous dynamic range especially good for capturing the harmonics of the concert hall. The ratio of the music signal to background noise (Signal to Noise Ratio) was far superior in CD recordings - all of which used (and still do) the AIFF format.

That gets us to comparisons of digital formats. The gold standard is AIFF. Although sampled, and therefore loses some information in the purest sense, the loss is very nearly indistinguishable to the ear. In the sense that all of the bits captured and recorded are played back, it is "lossless."

As you have pointed out, AIFFs can take up a lot of disc space. That gave rise to formats that downsampled the AIFF file - compressing it (deleting certain sequences of data) according to an algorithm while storing it, and then restoring much of what was removed when playing back. The success of the algorithms in reproducing the original data from the AIFF file (or other source) is what determines how "lossy" the compression is. .mp3 is fairly "lossy." You definitely do not restore the file fully - but many people view it as "good enough."

Recognizing the need to improve .mp3 performance yet reduce the AIFF file size, efforts went into developing "lossless" formats - OGG, FLAC, Apple Lossless among others - they take up more storage space than .mp3, but not as much as AIFF. Their relative success is in using better algorithms than .mp3 to first compress, then restore, the waveform.

Understand that even an AIFF has minute gaps - there is a blank space with no music, occurring at a rate of 44.100kHz - and when one is "downsampling", the new format will sample that "nothing" occasionally, when hitting one of those "blank" spots. This results in some loss; the downsampled file will lose some of the information in the original.

So, that gets us to the file format comparisons: You will get the best results using the most complete information available in reproducing the original analog wave form. That is AIFF in the current technology. Any other format will be not quite as good - but some may be acceptably close, when storage space considerations are taken into account.

Once again - assuming equal electronics quality - it is the file format that determines the music quality. Record your music in AIFF format, from original AIFF sources (CDs) onto your iPod, and you will have the equal of your CD changer's output. That will be true using a PC or a Mac to record on the iPod.

By the way, I use an 80GB 5th Gen iPod. I import all of my CDs in AIFF into iTunes. When I had a 4th Gen iPod with 40 GB, I sometimes used Apple Lossless for popular music, but not for symphony performances. Again, I doubt Apple Lossless is better than FLAC (and I believe you are correct that iTunes will not handle FLAC; its format options are AIFF, WAV, .mp3, AAC and Apple Lossless) - use what you're comfortable with. Still, since getting the 80GB unit, I have gone back and revised my playlists to use the AIFF file version wherever I had it.

Unfortunately, music purchased through the iTunes music store is limited - essentially it is .mp3, with digital rights protection added. Apple has recently started offering some higher quality recordings with one company, free of DRM, and hopes to add more. There is a qualitative difference.

I can say this: Before the Gateway 500 became available for MOST bus, and available through U.S. distributors, I could not integrate an iPod into my '05 S500. So, I duplicated my music library, converted it to .mp3, and recorded it to DVDs. The DVD player in my car would handle only .mp3, unfortunately (or DVD movie soundtracks - which were great in sound quality). The .mp3 DVD solution was better than nothing, but not nearly as satisfactory as using my iPod - for both quality and convenience.

But the iPod is great, especially when playing back original AIFF files.

Still, that's not close to 600 GB, and using original AIFF files would probably require a supplemental hard drive for your car PC.

The Gateway 500 would accept FLAC only as an analog, through the AUX input.

A question some have asked - though not you - I wouldn't bother converting music from .mp3 or lesser formats to AIFF; the loss of data has already occurred, and you don't get it back re-converting it to AIFF (or to a higher sampling rate). You just burn up disc space.

Originally Posted by TomTanderson

I know everybody else gets track numbers on the MFD but I get track titles .

I haven't yet found out what makes my setup special, maybe its something MB have changed (I have a UK 2008 E280CDI).

Originally Posted by TomTanderson

I know everybody else gets track numbers on the MFD but I get track titles .

I haven't yet found out what makes my setup special, maybe its something MB have changed (I have a UK 2008 E280CDI).

Originally Posted by Skylaw

Tom,

Do you have the MB iPod kit (which I stated should give you song titles on the MFD), or do you have a Gateway 500? I ask because Dension was discussing a tie-in to the CAN Bus for their Version 3 hardware that would give song titles, etc. on the MFD as well as the COMAND display.

Originally Posted by TomTanderson

It's the Gateway 500 - I haven't found anybody else who gets it on the MFD. I would be interested to know what is different about my setup but I wouldn't even bother to talk to Dension about it because their support is dire to non-existent.