Is there a difference between FLAC and Apple Lossless ?

[pjdowns]

So I have currently got the majority of my music converted into Applelossless using the 'Auto' option.

I was wondering whether I consider changing over to FLAC, as I see that a lot of the, what I would call Audiophile people here and on other forums appear to use it.

Is there any difference, if not, should I just stick with what I already know?

A friend has recommended EAC (Exact Audio Copy) which I have just downloaded and was going to have a play with.

Paul.

P.S. Sorry if this has been covered before!

[Welder]

The short answer is no, there is no difference bar the compression tool.
You can convert one to another without loss of information.
Apple users tend to use ALAC and Windows users tend to use Flac.
If you’re going to use EAC then Flac is a bit easier (no second conversion) but you can use EAC and convert to ALAC without any data loss.

If you’re using a Mac then probably sticking with ALAC will give you less problems in the long run with regard to tagging and compatible players.

[Stratmangler]

The short answer is no, there is no difference bar the compression tool.
You can convert one to another without loss of information.
Apple users tend to use ALAC and Windows users tend to use Flac.
If you’re going to use EAC then Flac is a bit easier (no second conversion) but you can use EAC and convert to ALAC without any data loss.

If you’re using a Mac then probably sticking with ALAC will give you less problems in the long run with regard to tagging and compatible players.

+1

[pjdowns]

Great thanks.

I use a Mac (as you can probably see from my signature) but I also use a PC...

I guess my biggest concern was that with the number of updates from Apple in relation to iTunes, were they likely to update it too much and then have an impact on the overall encoding it does???

As per my previous comment, I downloaded EAC and found this website http://filesharefreak.com/tutorials/properly-ripping-to-flac-with-eac-099/ so have configured it as per recommendation using Secure and error correction, which is something I never do on iTunes, just pop the disc in a click import.

Could the above make a difference or should as per you my previous comments stay with what I am familiar with?

Thanks

Paul.

[Welder]

I’m not too sure what you’re trying to achieve here.


I’m not sure why you’re friend recommended EAC given you’re primarily it seems an Apple user for audio. A far better ripper and file converter for your setup I would have thought is dbpoweramp (the free version is fine for ripping) which will rip and convert to either format (Flac and ALAC). EAC rips to WAV and then a plugin converts to Flac.
Basically, if you are going to stick to Apple, then dbpoweramp. If you’re going to use Windows, then EAC, Flac and say foobar are a good combination.

This is the problem with Apple stuff, as long as you stick to what they sell you you’re okay but if you want to run other non Apple applications then you tend to run into problems. I think you need to make up your mind which OS gives you greater flexibility and when you’ve picked Windows you can take that signature down and say sorry :ner: :lolsign:

[Beechwoods]

I think dbPowerAmp is Windows only as well.

For the Mac, I recommend xACT (http://xact.scottcbrown.org/) or XLD (http://tmkk.pv.land.to/xld/index_e.html) (X-Lossless Decoder).

The debate about FLAC versus ALAC versus raw/uncompressed has been had before, and on paper they 'should' all sound the same. Some out there swear they can hear differences. For me, the logical reason why this might be is the efficiency and accuracy of streaming/ on-the-fly playback conversion, versus the accuracy of batch transcoding back to an uncompressed format. The same sort of argument that comes into play around jitter, bitstream accuracy etc, in CD playback. The audible differences will vary according to the streaming 'elegance' of the CODEC, the gear used to stream and convert it on the fly, so there's no easy answer other than to do some comparisons and see what sounds best in your setup!

[slate]

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison

I would say that the biggest difference is not in sound quality, but:
- politics; Apple wants you to use their formats, hence for both audio and video there are formats not supported.
- FLAC are supported on more hardware platforms

To get FLAC to play on Apple products, you can find thirdparty apps e.g. Rockbox for the iPod

[Welder]

I mentioned dbpoweramp because I believe it converts to ALAC while EAC doesn’t.
I had assumed that Paul intended to use his PC for ripping given he plans to give EAC a shot.

[WAD62]

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison

I would say that the biggest difference is not in sound quality, but:
- politics; Apple wants you to use their formats, hence for both audio and video there are formats not supported.
- FLAC are supported on more hardware platforms

To get FLAC to play on Apple products, you can find thirdparty apps e.g. Rockbox for the iPod

I tend to agree with Jan, ripping your collection is something you will hopefully only have to do once.

It's impossible to predict the future, but going with an agnostic (get those IT buzz words in there) format such as FLAC may be more future proof. ;)

And if you do have a PC I'd thoroughly recommend dBpoweramp, but more importantly a good quality CD Rom drive, it makes a big difference for accuracy and speed :)

[Stratmangler]

I mentioned dbpoweramp because I believe it converts to ALAC while EAC doesn’t.
I had assumed that Paul intended to use his PC for ripping given he plans to give EAC a shot.

I have and use dbPoweramp, and can confirm that it will encode to ALAC.

[Welder]

"And if you do have a PC I'd thoroughly recommend dBpoweramp, but more importantly a good quality CD Rom drive, it makes a big difference for accuracy and speed"

+1

[Tim]

"And if you do have a PC I'd thoroughly recommend dBpoweramp, but more importantly a good quality CD Rom drive, it makes a big difference for accuracy and speed"
+1 absolutely essential, especially if you are doing a large collection. A flimsy and slow laptop drive will take for ever if you have 1,000's of CD's

[Rare Bird]

+1 absolutely essential, especially if you are doing a large collection. A flimsy and slow laptop drive will take for ever if you have 1,000's of CD's

+1 again
the reason i opened this

http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10788