I hear the difference between my apple lossless files and my CD player.

..... and I can't say one sounds better (subjective) but the same recordings do sound quite different.
On paper the apple lossless files have higher sample rate and bites and such but what about the source of those files? I'm confident some here could break this down. I'm far from an expert on the nuts and bolts of what I'm hearing. My CD player which is a Musical Fidelity m2scd gives me more detail like instrument separation and better vocal presentation. My files come from my mac mini into a Musical Fidelity DAC and give me a little more low end while sounding more polite. I'm sure there's other variables that come into play.

 

Have you tried the cd player through the DAC?

 

Are you playing the Apple lossless files through a built-in DAC in an integrated amp?
Is your integrated amp the Musical Fidelity M3SI: Musical Fidelity | M3si Integrated Amplifier
The M3SI has a built-in DAC and a USB input that can accept up to 24/96

The M2SCD product page: Musical Fidelity | M2scd CD Player

If that's your setup then the Apple lossless files and the CDs are playing through different DACs. And that is the most likely explanation for the sonic differences you hear. Just because they're both Musical Fidelity DACs of similar lineage doesn't mean they're the same DAC chips and DAC implementation. They're going to sound different.

 

Make sure that the volume levels are matched exactly. Exactly…

 

Yes, thanks. Intuitively thats just what i thought. Now let me ask if the DAC's were the same would audible differences be gone?

 

Yes, assuming the source files are the same mastering and the computer playback of the digital files is configured to be bit-perfect.

First challenge is to make sure the downloaded Apple files are the same as what's on the CD. Same mastering, same bit-depth, same sample-rate.

Next challenge is to make sure that the computer (or streamer) playing the digital files is configured to do bit-perfect playback. Some computer playback setups will default to resampling or doing other digital processing that changes the bits. That changes the bits, and things like resampling can make a noticeable difference in the sound qualities.

If the digital files and the CD are the same, and if the computer is configured to play bit-perfect, and if they're played back through the same DAC then they will sound the same. Except that in the audiophile level of listening and comparisons there can still be a slight difference due to one source having more jitter than the other. The differences due to jitter are very subtle and often aren't noticed.

So yes they should sound the same, with some audiophile minutia potential differences.

 

If the Apple Lossless files aren't rips of your CDs, they are likely to be different masterings, and that will likely overwhelm any other differences you're hearing (other than possibly volume). Otherwise it's not shocking that different DACs sound different.

 

Different mastering? please explain.

 

In simple terms, the final step of getting a recording released is called mastering. The files or tapes are given to a mastering engineer, who applies some audio tweaks to it. There may be some equalization, some compression, and other stuff done. It's why people on this forum seek out different versions of the same albums, and can result in substantial differences and spirited discussions.

Downloads and CDs are frequently mastered differently - in fact Apple was pushing their own "mastered for iTunes" releases. If that's the case here, then most of what you're hearing is likely those mastering differences. If the files are simply rips of your CDs, then you're hearing something else, like volume differences between your CD player and DAC (all things being equal, slightly louder sounds better even if you don't notice the volume differrence), or the sound of the DACs themselves.

Our forum host, Steve Hoffman, is one of the legendary mastering engineers. And you may be about to enter a very deep rabbit hole...

 

Once upon a time someone made your CD in most cases by playing back an old analog reel-to-reel tape into an analog-to-digital converter, then probably futzed around with the files messing with EQ and level. For many albums, they were "remastered" which often meant repeating this process:
- The tape may or may not have been the exact same tape, since sometimes they are from safety copies at the same place or overseas or who knows.
- The tape machine *hopefully* was improved over the original
- But the tape may have deteriorated.
- Later masterings probably are done by a different person with different tastes than the original, plus a need to have the "new improved" version sound obviously different.
- Sometimes other reworking are done, like Apple had a "Mastered For iTunes" program for a while, and presumably some titles got re-fiddled for this. IIRC one of the goals was to reduce dynamic compression.
- There has been a tendency over time to compress and compress the sound, so everything is loud all the time.
All this long-windedness means that comparisons are worthless unless you rip and upload your own CDs to Apple, then check all the stuff @Ham Sandwich noted. Then get a voltmeter-NOT an SPL meter, that it not accurate enough-and rip/upload a test tone to check the voltage out of each chain is within a few percent. By then your brain will be too tired to make any meaningful comparison, so it's time for a snootful of alcohol to ease the pain.

 

Don't you mean Al-a-Gator den?

 

Very helpful, thanks. You mentioned original or older CD masterings not being great and no doubt the case but what about current CD remastering, are those files different from the files Apple remasters?

 

That is the kind of question we spend hours researching here, and the question that brought a lot of us to this forum. It depends on a case by case basis.

 

Opposite.
In general: pre-1995 mastering> post-1995 mastering> post-2000 loudness wars.
Exceptions abound, e.g., our host SH has always done great work.

 

I subscribed to Roon when I began to convert over to an all digital system. My DAC streamer was just getting its Roon certification so when first set up it played using Apple Air Play which sounded good, however once the streamer/DAC became Roon certified and the new drivers loaded there was a noticeable improvement with Roon over Apple Air Play. I’m not sure this is equivalent to what you are asking but my belief is Apple Music streaming can be bested in a number of ways and comparing it to a CD of comparable file structure then I believe the CD should sound better. When I compare CD to a Roon digital file that was a flak rip of that CD it would be very hard to say one sounded better than the other. Here is where I am drawing the conclusion so it my not hold water but I was not happy with Apple Air Play after comparing to either a CD or digital through Roon.

 

For serious listening, I still use my CD player, ALAC is great for everything else

 

Throwing in another factor: the quality of your digital transport into the DAC will also have an effect on the sound being played back by the DAC.

"bits are just bits" is easy to assume but not actually true. The quality of the streamer as regards jitter, clocks, power supplies and respective noise plays a material role.

I was skeptical but it took an (immediately hearable) upgrade from my Bluesound node 2i (used solely as a transport into the DAC) to an Auralic Aries to have the quality of streamed files match the quality of redbook CDs playing directly from my luxman d-03x (which acts as both the CDP and DAC through USB).

Computers are notorious for noise derived from poor shielding and the fact they are doing many things at once.

Many will disappear, but i now reccomend anyone to try a good digital transport.

 

Just to be clear, you are not streaming, you are doing "local file playback." While it does depend on the set up, using a laptop or similar computer for your file storage could introduce some problems. On the other hand, if you are "streaming" from Qobuz or similar service and playing into a high-quality external DAC, it doesn't make sense to spend more than a couple of hundred bucks for the streamer, because you will be bypassing its DAC.

 

You probably aren't hearing different-sounding source material, but different-sounding gear. But there is no reason for a CD player to sound differently from the same files played through the same dac (and amp and speakers). They sound identical.

 

If you're comparing your own CDs with whatever Apple is pulling from their servers, then all bets are off. I've discovered quite a few tracks on iTunes which were transcoded from MP3s, and many more which have Universal Music Group's watermarking applied to them, which causes a noticeable warbling/chattering effect:

Universal's Audible Watermark

The only way to do a fair comparison is to rip your own CDs into ALAC. Then compare CD playback with the ALAC files.

 

No. Even if the DACs are identical, the DAC in the amplifier has to live with a lot of surrounding amplifier circuitry, often with less isolation of components, less space between components, and power supply issues. There can also be re-clocking issues, although with modern DACs it's no longer much of a consideration. The general rule is that even if the DACs are "identical," it is preferable to use the DAC in the CD player and connect through the RCA inputs of the amplifier.

 

Here’s an importunate question: what does it matter if the sound is subtly different if it’s not a matter of one sounding notably worse than the other?

It’s an interesting sonic detective challenge to speculate about and track down the possible variables behind the contrast as the responses indicate. And the game many of us endlessly play here is the games of preferences, as in “I prefer version or source X over version or source Y,” which can lead to useful and helpful recommendations if superior sound quality is actually in play. But a lot of the “I prefer” commentary here also tends to imply every difference is an important contrast in quality and excellence when that is often untrue, leading to neurotic connoisseur zaniness and the narcissism of small differences (cf. all the threads obsessing about real or imagined differences between the way different lossless codecs sound).

 

I think a CD player and PC server connected to the same DAC can have a different sound. With the PC, the data stream either goes USB> Toslink conversion or USB to USB on the Schiit DAC. CD player just a straight coax hook-up. I think it's probably just the quality of the connection/conversion going on. What I mean is, I think a Schiit Modi3 might sound better with it's coax input vs USB or toslink. Could be imagining it but it's something I noticed early on.

 

My experience with streaming (had a Tidal account for years before ditching it, also spent time with other services) is that you can never trust the mastering on the streaming service to be the same as any version you can purchase - physical or digital. These streaming services sometimes have their own exclusive versions or some version that has been messed with (e.g. MQA, ADM, etc.). Streaming services also typically have some kind of volume normalization feature that may or may not sound good as well as a feature that lowers quality when bandwith becomes an issue.

A lot of the mastering for classic albums I encountered on streaming services tended to be jacked up in loudness and compression. Many humans will automatically pick the louder one as the best sounding one on first listen. That is why level matching is important - and it's not always easy to do that with streaming services. When you have two files level matching is a lot easier.

My 2 cents.

 

Don't you think that a lot of the content in these streaming services is just manipulated redbook 16/44? Upsampled to 24/192 for instance so it shows as a "high res" bitrate? But in fact, is just CD quality? I can upsample any CD to 24/192 with one click in JRiver. I can also downsample 24 bit to 44/48khz. I'll be darned if I could tell a difference in a blind test. I don't question that there is good native 24 bit masters on these services as well but a huge majority probably haven't been remastered.