Apple Lossless vs Flac - on a Mac

[sc53]

I have always heard and read that Apple Lossless is bit perfect. Make sure that on your iTunes settings, under the Import tab, you turn Error Correction on, and of course select the Lossless format. iTunes does not put DRM on files you rip from your own CDs. I think that you also can rip iTunes-purchased music (which is DRM-protected) onto a CDR, then import that CDR into iTunes to get around DRM for those tunes as well. At least I think I learned that on this forum some months ago! Of course, iTunes purchased music is lossy and cannot be improved by burning it to a CDR. Duh.
One other tip I learned on this forum: if you end up missing a lot of cover art in iTunes, you can for $25 buy a program called Cover Scout that runs really well on Mac and finds missing album art automatically from Amazon or Google for you. You can select among various cover pix available and link it to your iTunes music. I have filled in all my missing album art on my Mac Powerbook that way.

[creativepart]

Album art can be a hassle -- I have a LOT of Beatles material and iTunes won't find that at all (nor George Harrison, John Lennon, Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney solo work either).

It also wouldn't find Allman Brothers Band art work for some reason. Which is odd, since iTunes sells ABB music.

I've only got 500 or so songs on my 30 gig Ipod which is half-full (loaded from my PC system), but I have kept all the Album art up to date for every album. I could see how it would be tough to keep up with the artwork if you don't do it right from the start.

I loaded my Ipod with ALAC files too and it looks like 1000 songs would fill the 30 gigs up. Once I get the Mac system going and full of all my CDs, I'll probably reformat my PC based Ipod to Mac and keep more high bit rate MP3s on the Ipod.

Thanks for the info on that Album Art program.

[bobschneider]

OK. I know that iTunes does a lossless rip and I know that it properly tags and organizes my albums, songs and library. Is it bit perfect? That's the question.

It's not EAC, I know that. But I've had some not so pleasant surprises from EAC due to it's complexity. It's easy to make a mistake.

I think the assumption with ALAC is that it is "bit perfect", is it not? What's the consensus on that?

There are two separate issues here. One is whether a compression program can reconstruct an compressed file that is identical to the original. ALAC and FLAC can both do this - MP3 cannot.

The other is whether the software is accurately reading exactly what was on the CD, or is it interpolating or otherwise "papering over" bits that it wasn't able to read from the original CD. Some programs are better at reading the original data from the CD - EAC (for Windows) and MAX (for Mac) are two good ones. They give you lots of options about how many times to try to re-read a section if the CD drive is having trouble, and tell you when there's a problem they've had to cover up. iTunes doesn't give this level of control or information, so you don't know for sure if the file on your hard drive is bit for bit identical with the original CD.

It's easy to get these two issues confused, since most software performs both functions, but they are two separate functions.

[b33k34]

i'm thinking of switching to a mac mini and reripping all my music to an NAS. Is it possible to run two libraries with iTunes and how easy is it to convert?

Ideally i'd like a lossless set for slim playback and archive along with a maybe 128kb set for the portable. At the moment i have everything ripped at 256 (or higher) mp3 and it kills both storage and battery life on my portables.

[mikerob]

i'm thinking of switching to a mac mini and reripping all my music to an NAS. Is it possible to run two libraries with iTunes and how easy is it to convert?

Ideally i'd like a lossless set for slim playback and archive along with a maybe 128kb set for the portable. At the moment i have everything ripped at 256 (or higher) mp3 and it kills both storage and battery life on my portables.

I use this application to manage two separate iTunes libraries on my Mac Mini
http://dougscripts.com/itunes/itinfo...arymanager.php

One is a lossless library that is used by Slimserver and the other is a lossy library used by my iPod.

My workflow is:
- load lossless iTunes lirary
- rip CD to ALAC using iTunes and get tags the way I want
- load lossy iTunes library
- convert ALAC tracks to AAC using iTunes

I don't actually use the iTunes import feature on Slimserver but instead point Slimserver at a top-level folder that contains symbolic links to the folders containing tracks.

Maintaining two different libraries certainly means more work - I'm sure the workflow could be automated more but I really couldn't be bothered as I don't find it that much of a hassle.

[creativepart]

I haven't checked it out yet, but I was told that the Max application (http://sbooth.org/Max/) can do all this on the fly for Macs -- make two versions at the same time.

I could have understood it wrong but it seems to claim to do something like this.

[Audiotic]

The most importance decision is to rip to a lossless format. Any lossless format can be converted to any other format (lossless or otherwise) at a later date.

IMO the other importance thing is to use a ripping program which will give you bit perfect copies, or let you know if not - and that's where I would have a doubt over iTunes.

The third important thing is to keep your files in separate directories for each disk or album, and organise them is a consistent way - /Artist/Album/Tracks is a common one. You should also ensure that each 'rip' is tagged with at least the Artist, Album and track numbers and names. It's relatively easy to add and edit tags at a later date, but the more you get right to start with the easier it is, and you need to make sure you know at least what everything is and what it goes with!

Interesting article in the german Stereo magazine of Dec. 2007 (the latest) - they tested a bunch of rippers and found iTunes to sound the best. I just put it there as they say it. I thought they are a very reputable magazine. So?

[Robin Bowes]

Audiotic wrote:
> Patrick Dixon;190650 Wrote:
>> The most importance decision is to rip to a lossless format. Any
>> lossless format can be converted to any other format (lossless or
>> otherwise) at a later date.
>>
>> IMO the other importance thing is to use a ripping program which will
>> give you bit perfect copies, or let you know if not - and that's where
>> I would have a doubt over iTunes.
>>
>> The third important thing is to keep your files in separate directories
>> for each disk or album, and organise them is a consistent way -
>> /Artist/Album/Tracks is a common one. You should also ensure that each
>> 'rip' is tagged with at least the Artist, Album and track numbers and
>> names. It's relatively easy to add and edit tags at a later date, but
>> the more you get right to start with the easier it is, and you need to
>> make sure you know at least what everything is and what it goes with!
>
> Interesting article in the german Stereo magazine of Dec. 2007 (the
> latest) - they tested a bunch of rippers and found iTunes to sound the
> best. I just put it there as they say it. I thought they are a very
> reputable magazine. So?

In theory, the only way *any* ripper can sound better than another is if
the other one is faulty, i.e. if it can not rip accurately. If a ripper
is working correctly, it should rip with 100% accuracy.

What were the other rippers? How did they do the test? To what format
were they ripping?

R.

[ErikM]

FWIW I've been using DBpoweramp to rip to Apple lossless. It has secure and ultra secure ripping with Accurate Rip checking. I've also ripped a bunch of my CD's with iTunes to Apple lossless. I can't hear a difference. I also ripped some stuff to flac to compare to Apple lossless didn't hear a difference. As others have said if it's a good error free rip everything should sound the same.

[ErikM]

Anyway to give us a linky or copy the review or anything?? I'd love to read that review. Thanks!

Interesting article in the german Stereo magazine of Dec. 2007 (the latest) - they tested a bunch of rippers and found iTunes to sound the best. I just put it there as they say it. I thought they are a very reputable magazine. So?