Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › FLAC vs Apple LossLess
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FLAC vs Apple LossLess - Page 2  

post #16 of 149

It reminds of when I started into audio. As my equipment got better, my record collection sounded worst. It turned out the records I had were not well mastered. So I started looking for well recorded and well mastered recordings.

post #17 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuwhere View Post

It reminds of when I started into audio. As my equipment got better, my record collection sounded worst. It turned out the records I had were not well mastered. So I started looking for well recorded and well mastered recordings.

yea I feel ya there, that happend to me a few days ago. All of my Nujabes was about 162 198k and some it was like youtube rips or other weird sources, I found a HQ release of actual Albums and it made a world of difference. I had remixes but not the orignals and the Orignals are much better mastered than the remixes, it was pretty clear difference. 

post #18 of 149

I use ALAC just because I have an iPod which I absolutely love. = ) If I didn't have one I could have used anything else too...

post #19 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtus View Post

I use ALAC just because I have an iPod which I absolutely love. = ) If I didn't have one I could have used anything else too...

Good for you, the simple'r the better. I've got a Zune and a iPod so my life is full of complicated options to weigh xD 

post #20 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuwhere View Post

My opinion is this. You can lossless all you want but if the original was not mastered well it still would not sound good.

 

This x1000.

 

Different lossless file formats don't "sound different" because they are only file containers, as has already been pointed out. If the music sounds different when playing back the same track stored in a different file format, then something weird is going on with the playback software.

post #21 of 149

good point, *sigh* computers are so fickel. So many little reasons why something's not 100% what it should be lol

post #22 of 149

I was originally all flac, but to be honest, ALAC is just so much easier, taking out the hassle of cue and image files, and having an iPod also probably helps...

 

Ripping to ALAC also just seems easier to me.

post #23 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by tachyon42 View Post

I was originally all flac, but to be honest, ALAC is just so much easier, taking out the hassle of cue and image files, and having an iPod also probably helps...

 

Ripping to ALAC also just seems easier to me.


There's no reason for FLAC to use cue and image files.

post #24 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post


There's no reason for FLAC to use cue and image files.

Indeed, still though Apple is so restrictive! Atm though I'm converting some waves to flac so I can use em on my Hifiman hm 601 and OMG there's a BIRD singing in the back of the Dub Step tune :O it's so faint but man it really adds something nice :D 

post #25 of 149
Hmmmm... I haven't tried ALAC yet. I suppose not much supports it yet anyway. I'm sticking to FLAC smily_headphones1.gif
post #26 of 149

I haven't seen FLAC work in itunes personally. So ALAC is a better format if you use multiple playback engines and portable devices..since ALAC goes anywhere including your IOS devices lossless. Itunes is not the greatest sounding player anyway, and ALAC sounds amazing on better players including Foobar and J River.

 

Also, ALAC has better tagging/metadata.

post #27 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

I haven't seen FLAC work in itunes personally. So ALAC is a better format if you use multiple playback engines and portable devices..since ALAC goes anywhere including your IOS devices lossless.

 

Also, ALAC has better tagging/metadata.

 


Er, well, only if your 'playback engines' and portable devices of choice include iTunes and iOS; most people who care about quality have something better.

 

FLAC allows custom tags, so I can't begin to imagine your reasoning on the latter point.

post #28 of 149

I haven't seen ALAC files yet. Could sb provide some sources I can find them? Thanks.

post #29 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will9291 View Post

I haven't seen ALAC files yet. Could sb provide some sources I can find them? Thanks.


http://www.wommusic.com/shop/categories.php?category=Digital-Downloads/Apple-Lossless . Enjoy!

post #30 of 149

Tell you what ticks me off is when I have to buy a CD to get .Flacs because only iTunes sells the Digital Loseless quality of this particullar CD :/, although I don't mind buying a CD, just the w8ing for it <3 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › FLAC vs Apple LossLess