Apple lossless on SB 2: is there any advantage with thenative FLAC?

[Jim McCall]

Is there any advantage with Apple Lossless files using a SB2 vs. SB1?

I know it natively decodes flac.

If there is not advantage, what is the advantage when using FLAC as a
source? Is it that you only have to stream the compressed file? So maybe you
save 40 to 60% of file network traffic?

Thanks,
Jim

[JJZolx]

what is the advantage when using FLAC as a
source? Is it that you only have to stream the compressed file? So maybe you save 40 to 60% of file network traffic?

They're the same bandwidth-wise, since Apple Lossless would normally be transcoded into flac before being streamed to an SB2.

You save a few CPU cycles at the server with flac, since the Apple Lossless has to be decoded and then encoded to flac by SlimServer. The encoding to flac doesn't require much processing, but I'm not sure about the decoding of Apple Lossless.

[kdf]

Quoting Jim McCall <jim (AT) elasticmedia (DOT) com>:

> Is there any advantage with Apple Lossless files using a SB2 vs. SB1?
>
well, if you can handle uncompressed over your wireless setup, or have it wired,
then SB1 will be less intense as far as CPU since it only uncompresses without
having to compress back to wav (unless you disable aac->flc for sb2). The
analogue audio out is FAR better on the SB2 if you plan to use that

> I know it natively decodes flac.
>
> If there is not advantage, what is the advantage when using FLAC as a
> source? Is it that you only have to stream the compressed file? So maybe you
> save 40 to 60% of file network traffic?
>
AAC might be preferred if you are tied to iTunes or iPOD's. HAving flac means
less cpu usage on the server and, yes 40-60% savings on bandwidth. Audio
quality of flac vs apple lossless is really an unending argument

-kdf

[Spies]

I also believe that native formats like FLAC on the SB2 allow for fast
forwarding and rewinding while non native formats that need trans
coding do not. That is a HUGE advantage to me.

On 7/2/05, kdf <slim-mail (AT) deane-freeman (DOT) com> wrote:
> Quoting Jim McCall <jim (AT) elasticmedia (DOT) com>:
>
> > Is there any advantage with Apple Lossless files using a SB2 vs. SB1?
> >
> well, if you can handle uncompressed over your wireless setup, or have it wired,
> then SB1 will be less intense as far as CPU since it only uncompresses without
> having to compress back to wav (unless you disable aac->flc for sb2). The
> analogue audio out is FAR better on the SB2 if you plan to use that
>
> > I know it natively decodes flac.
> >
> > If there is not advantage, what is the advantage when using FLAC as a
> > source? Is it that you only have to stream the compressed file? So maybe you
> > save 40 to 60% of file network traffic?
> >
> AAC might be preferred if you are tied to iTunes or iPOD's. HAving flac means
> less cpu usage on the server and, yes 40-60% savings on bandwidth. Audio
> quality of flac vs apple lossless is really an unending argument
>
> -kdf
>

[relen]

Audio
quality of flac vs apple lossless is really an unending argument

That's an interesting comment. Both formats are lossless, and by definition that means the bits coming in and the bits coming out are the same in both cases. They should have the same timing at each end in both cases too. If this is not the case, one or both is not "lossless". So... what's going on here?

--Richard E

[kdf]

Quoting relen <relen.1rkeqn (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

>
> kdf Wrote:
> > Audio
> > quality of flac vs apple lossless is really an unending argument
> >
>
> That's an interesting comment. Both formats are lossless, and by
> definition that means the bits coming in and the bits coming out are
> the same in both cases. They should have the same timing at each end in
> both cases too. If this is not the case, one or both is not "lossless".
> So... what's going on here?

I rest my case