advertisement


'Best' ripping format for CDs

Teddy Ray said:
FLAC conversion is doing nothing to the file. you can compress/decompress 1,000,000 times and in the end , run a checksum/null test. you will have the same thing as you started with.

these things have been thoroughly debunked.
Click to expand...

I know this, no doubts, bit&bytes are exactly the same. But on Squeezebox the decompressing process us using some cpu power compared to wav and probably this is causing sq differences.
Few years ago i was telling to my friends, which where playing waves instead of flac, that it doesn't make sense etc. Than i did my own experiments i now i am converted wav listener.
 
I suppose if decompression used a huge amount of processor power, and the DAC shared a power supply with the processor, then you might just be able to make a case for it... but decompressing FLACs presents very low CPU load, that's one of the advantages of the format relative to other lossless alternatives, e.g. APE.
 
hammeredklavier said:
If you rip a CD so that the track number is the first part of the filename then the tracks will play in the right order, provided the software simply allows you to choose which folder you you wish to play and then play the tracks in order of filename. Apple's way tries to guess your albums and organise your music for you by looking at metadata, so I end up with huge playlists of everything by Beethoven, for example, or everything performed by Alfred Brendel. Quite useless. Foobar (on PC) and Sony Walkmans are fine. As is Winamp, although I hate the interface!
Click to expand...

Thank you for expanding on this but I still don't understand the problem because I am just not seeing this issue in my own collection. My classical CDs are organised in the iTunes database in exactly the same way as my rock/jazz CDs, first by artist and then by album title.

Personally I usually choose by album, not by artist when I am about to play something.

Clearly there is something different in the way the two of us are using iTunes but I have no idea what it is.

I should point out here that although I use iTunes to manage my music, I actually use squeezebox software to play it.
 
tomek said:
I know this, no doubts, bit&bytes are exactly the same. But on Squeezebox the decompressing process us using some cpu power compared to wav and probably this is causing sq differences.
Few years ago i was telling to my friends, which where playing waves instead of flac, that it doesn't make sense etc. Than i did my own experiments i now i am converted wav listener.
Click to expand...

Good on you Tomek, do what is best for you. I am also a dedicated wav listener, they start out as flacs and the server converts them before sending them to the network - pretty common way of doing things.
This does give more network traffic but with a dedicated ethernet chip the load on the SBT cpu won't be greatly increased, either way it works for me.
 
graham-r said:
Good on you Tomek, do what is best for you. I am also a dedicated wav listener, they start out as flacs and the server converts them before sending them to the network - pretty common way of doing things.
This does give more network traffic but with a dedicated ethernet chip the load on the SBT cpu won't be greatly increased, either way it works for me.
Click to expand...

My first setting was wav decompression on the server, but for some reason in my system it sounds worse than just playing waves ...
 
AndyU said:
I think by default, LMS streams WAVs as FLAC in any case ... !
Click to expand...

It probably does, it needs to be told otherwise - and also to force it to stream flacs as wavs, it is one of the many settings written in some weird coded language.
 
On my iPod I can sometimes tell the difference between AIFF and ALAC which is a lossless compression.
On the Squeezebox there are settings under advanced where you can get the PC to do the converting/decompressing rather than the little processor on the Squeeze Touch. There is a difference which can be heard particularly on the clarity of the bass on some tracks.l
See the link:
http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/touch-toolbox-30.html

I had to view this in Mozilla as Internet Explorer wouldn't display the graphics.
 
Teddy Ray said:
FLAC conversion is doing nothing to the file. you can compress/decompress 1,000,000 times and in the end , run a checksum/null test. you will have the same thing as you started with.
Click to expand...

How does the Apple Lossless format compare? It's reputed to be a proprietary species of FLAC.
 
neilmack said:
How does the Apple Lossless format compare? It's reputed to be a proprietary species of FLAC.
Click to expand...

No quality difference as both are lossless. No longer proprietary as Apple released it into the public domain a year or so ago, and more compatible (i.e. will play in iTunes, on iPhones, iPods, iPads etc) as well as just about all other music players and replay software. Nothing not to like IMO, it's like Flac, but more versatile as it will play on more devices.
 
Tony L said:
No quality difference as both are lossless. No longer proprietary as Apple released it into the public domain a year or so ago, and more compatible (i.e. will play in iTunes, on iPhones, iPods, iPads etc) as well as just about all other music players and replay software. Nothing not to like IMO, it's like Flac, but more versatile as it will play on more devices.
Click to expand...

flac is more widely adopted and is the de facto standard for digital download merchants.

apple is late to the game. flacs been around for ages longer than ALAC.



you seem to think that everyone has Apple products. that isn't the case. not at all.

people into lossless audio have been using FLAC before Apple had any clue what was going on..
 
Yawn. Teddy, your flawed as you hates teh Apple so much. The simple reality is Apple Lossless is exactly the same as Flac, but plays on more players / runs on more software. It is therefore better as it is more compatible / more useful. There is no trade-off, no disadvantage here. Flac is just Apple Lossless that can't be used in iTunes, on iPhones, iPads, iPods etc, i.e. the kit a huge (almost certainly the largest) percentage of digital music users choose to run.
 
Tony L said:
Yawn. Teddy, your flawed as you hates teh Apple so much. The simple reality is Apple Lossless is exactly the same as Flac, but plays on more players / runs on more software. It is therefore better as it is more compatible / more useful. There is no trade-off, no disadvantage here. Flac is just Apple Lossless that can't be used in iTunes, on iPhones, iPads, iPods etc, i.e. the kit a huge (almost certainly the largest) percentage of digital music users choose to run.
Click to expand...

flac - open source

used natively on more devices

nobody uses ALAC that doesnt have to. a hell of a lot of people outside the apple ecosystem.

no software that plays alac and not flac...the reverse is not true.

apple is late to the party. period. thats why they arent the standard..FLAC is.
 
Teddy, FLAC won't play in ITunes, on IPods, iPhones, Pads.
That's the hardware and software that most people have in their pockets these days, and I strongly suspect that iTunes is the choice of music player for most home PC (non OSX) users.

I appreciate it's likely very different in the pro world.

When all said and done its largely just the name that's different.Both are effectively audio zip files, and yes it's naughty of Apple not to allow playback of FLAC natively.
 
Robert said:
I appreciate it's likely very different in the pro world.
Click to expand...

Not that different, most pros I know use Logic on Macs!

PS last time I saw a PC in a studio it was used as a door stop and had a very obvious boot-print / foot-shaped dent in the side, which apparently occured shortly after Cubase had given the final mid-tracking blue screen of death the owner was prepared to put up with. That was a good few years ago now, but I doubt that much has changed since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top