PDA

View Full Version : Flac or Apple Lossless?



audiomex
2005-05-07, 13:57
Hello audiophiles,

I have been using Apple Lossless with my Squeezebox. The Squeezebox is connected digitally to either a TACT system or an Audio Note DAC. The sound has been very good.

One of the reasons I like Apple Lossless is that it is all very well managed thru the iTunes application.

Would there be any improvement in changing over to FLAC? I look forward to your comments.

pfarrell
2005-05-07, 15:06
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 13:57 -0700, audiomex wrote:
> I have been using Apple Lossless with my Squeezebox. The Squeezebox is
> connected digitally to either a TACT system or an Audio Note DAC. The
> sound has been very good.
> Would there be any improvement in changing over to FLAC? I look forward
> to your comments.


Lossless is lossless. The whole point is to recreate the original
signal. By definition, once you have the original, you are done.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

kefa
2005-05-07, 16:23
As I rip cds and intend to keep the files for a long time I prefer flac. I have greater faith in an open source format still be supported in 10-20 years.

Mark Bennett
2005-05-08, 00:29
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 13:57 -0700, audiomex wrote:
> Hello audiophiles,
>
> I have been using Apple Lossless with my Squeezebox. The Squeezebox is
> connected digitally to either a TACT system or an Audio Note DAC. The
> sound has been very good.
>
> One of the reasons I like Apple Lossless is that it is all very well
> managed thru the iTunes application.
>
> Would there be any improvement in changing over to FLAC? I look forward
> to your comments.

You win some, and lose some. This is almost certainly not an
exhaustive list....

On the losing side, you would miss out on

* the ability to manage the collection through iTunes.

On balance:

* Compression accuracy - both are lossless, so they should
both produce identical results from an audio perspective.
* Compressed file size is close enough between the two to
be irrelevant.
* Both support tagging fields, which is an improvement over
mainstream .wav.

On the plus side with an SB1(G), you gain:

* Open Source codec, with implementations on various
platforms and a means of decoding and re-coding your
music will probably be around longer than for Apple
Lossless.

In addition with an SB2:

* Less Slimserver load - no need to decode Apple lossless
and recode to Flac for your SB2.
* Ability to fast forward/reverse in a track. (Native Flac
streaming to the SB2 should allow this - although I
haven't actually tried it. Transcoded Flac won't support
FFWD/FREV.)

--
"The biggest problem encountered while trying to design a system that
was completely foolproof, was, that people tended to underestimate the
ingenuity of complete fools." (Douglas Adams)

JJZolx
2005-05-08, 00:59
There should be zero audible difference between the two lossless formats.
________
vaporizer shop (http://vaporshop.com)

Random-Tox
2005-05-10, 15:30
The limited support for FLAC and the restrictive nature of iTunes seem to be the main issues. Quality should be equal. I wish I could get a DVD-r media FLAC player for my truck, but I sure won't limit my options for sources, players, formats, and copying by using Itunes. I don't care if it is the sleekest interface and you can plug your ipod into a burton jacket or BMW dashboard.


Hello audiophiles,

I have been using Apple Lossless with my Squeezebox. The Squeezebox is connected digitally to either a TACT system or an Audio Note DAC. The sound has been very good.

One of the reasons I like Apple Lossless is that it is all very well managed thru the iTunes application.

Would there be any improvement in changing over to FLAC? I look forward to your comments.