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

FLAC vs Apple LossLess - Page 6  

post #76 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ru57y View Post

 

 

 

Most of my stuff on my Mac is ALAC, most of the music on my PC is FLAC (aside from the oodles of crappy .MP3's I have... urgh)

Bit for Bit > FLAC and ALAC seem to be fairly identical as files and identical to my ears. 

ALAC files are a little bit bigger if you like your super HR album art. 

 

I buy music in FLAC and then use the £1 application "FlacTunes" from the app store, it makes another lossless copy of a lossless file and makes it iTunes compatible. 

There was an old program called "Fluke" which played FLACs through iTunes. (only on OS X pre Lion (10.7) )

 

The forever awesome Allesandro Cortini released his Sonoio "Red" album with a dual-download of FLAC and ALAC.  

 

PC-wise, foobar2000 is still the way to go IMHO but as you have an iPod Touch; ALAC is probably where you want to pitch your tent. 

You're right there. Alot of download sources are offering ALAC now along with FLAC. HD Tracks is FLAC only still but I bet ALAC is coming very soon. In the meantime, no biggie converting FLAC to ALAC. I use Traders Little Helper (free)

post #77 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

Oh and something else I REALLY like about JRiver, it has onboard upsampling and downsampling. If your DAC/card doesn't do 88.2k, you can upsample to 96k and stay in WASAPI mode.

Same with all of the 16/44.1 redbook. You can set it to upsample to 24/96k and retain WASAPI! A beautiful thing!


I actually prefer Asio in bit for bit on Media Monkey. For some reason Wasapi sounds warmer to my ears while Asio has more treble detail. Most of my IEMs are on the warmer side so this is quite noticeable to me. But out of all my players cPlay sounds the best.

post #78 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratocasterMan View Post

 

You better believe it's not a priority for them! In fact, it's a strategic decision not to support FLAC, and there is only one reason for that decision. Apple doesn't sell FLAC in the iTunes store. It has nothing to do with them not getting enough messages. iTunes has been a huge profit center for Apple for a long time, and in fact, they have been very careful to do everything possible to keep their users buying content from iTunes. To think that Apple doesn't try to lock users into using the iTunes store is simply naive. Apple has no desire to support FLAC because they have no desire to encourage users to purchase something that they don't sell. Apple, Google, Amazon, and others are all locked in a battle to sell digital content from their stores. Why would Apple want to support FLAC on their devices when that would only encourage Apple users to purchase music from somewhere like HDTracks instead of purchasing from iTunes? Apple is a gigantic corporation with vast resources and they could support FLAC in a heartbeat if they wanted to, but they have made a decision not to support it and there is nothing accidental about that decision. For them to support it from a technical standpoint would be a piece of cake for them. Apple doesn't want to support FLAC because Apple is in the extremely profitable business of selling digital content, and they don't sell FLAC content!

 

Having said all that, things can change over time in business. It's possible that FLAC will become so popular that eventually Apple will decide they need to support it in order not to lose hardware sales. If that day ever comes, you will know it because suddenly FLAC will become available in the iTunes store.

How do you explain Apple not selling ALAC in the iTunes store?

post #79 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ru57y View Post

 

 

 

Most of my stuff on my Mac is ALAC, most of the music on my PC is FLAC (aside from the oodles of crappy .MP3's I have... urgh)

Bit for Bit > FLAC and ALAC seem to be fairly identical as files and identical to my ears. 

ALAC files are a little bit bigger if you like your super HR album art. 

 

I buy music in FLAC and then use the £1 application "FlacTunes" from the app store, it makes another lossless copy of a lossless file and makes it iTunes compatible. 

There was an old program called "Fluke" which played FLACs through iTunes. (only on OS X pre Lion (10.7) )

 

The forever awesome Allesandro Cortini released his Sonoio "Red" album with a dual-download of FLAC and ALAC.  

 

PC-wise, foobar2000 is still the way to go IMHO but as you have an iPod Touch; ALAC is probably where you want to pitch your tent. 

XLD does this on Mac for free.

post #80 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablobell View Post

How do you explain Apple not selling ALAC in the iTunes store?


Most consumers are quite satisfied with lossy formats and can't tell the difference for that matter. So there really isn't much benefit for apple to offer such downloads. Plus it would take a lot more bandwidth which would cost them money and I don't think they wanna give more than they have to :).

post #81 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablobell View Post

XLD does this on Mac for free.

Flactunes is so simple though, drag and drop with no setup if you can't be bothered :) that and the joy of free iTunes vouchers...

Hell: I'm not spending a penny of it on lossy 256k files!

 

Max does too - with the right plugins.. still works on 10.8

post #82 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratocasterMan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

Just FYI, Apple do indeed create their versions of different types of software as in the past, their ability to improve their products has been hijacked by companies being slow to update their software. In the past, they had to delay major Mac OS releases because the makers of third party components wouldn't work efficiently with them. That's why they even own their own aluminium mines and farm out important component sourcing and manufacturing to multiple companies. The people inside Apple don't sit around thinking "How can we lock users in" but indeed do spend their time working hard to produce the best possible products and user experience. Their attitude is that if their products are the best possible, then people will buy them.

 

As for FLAC support, it's probably not a priority for them. If you send enough messages via their feedback form, they might consider supporting it, but as it isn't a standardised format (as far as I know) the chances are not big.

 

You better believe it's not a priority for them! In fact, it's a strategic decision not to support FLAC, and there is only one reason for that decision. Apple doesn't sell FLAC in the iTunes store. It has nothing to do with them not getting enough messages. iTunes has been a huge profit center for Apple for a long time, and in fact, they have been very careful to do everything possible to keep their users buying content from iTunes. To think that Apple doesn't try to lock users into using the iTunes store is simply naive. Apple has no desire to support FLAC because they have no desire to encourage users to purchase something that they don't sell. Apple, Google, Amazon, and others are all locked in a battle to sell digital content from their stores. Why would Apple want to support FLAC on their devices when that would only encourage Apple users to purchase music from somewhere like HDTracks instead of purchasing from iTunes? Apple is a gigantic corporation with vast resources and they could support FLAC in a heartbeat if they wanted to, but they have made a decision not to support it and there is nothing accidental about that decision. For them to support it from a technical standpoint would be a piece of cake for them. Apple doesn't want to support FLAC because Apple is in the extremely profitable business of selling digital content, and they don't sell FLAC content!

 

Having said all that, things can change over time in business. It's possible that FLAC will become so popular that eventually Apple will decide they need to support it in order not to lose hardware sales. If that day ever comes, you will know it because suddenly FLAC will become available in the iTunes store.

 

They support MP3. I guess they forgot to lock people out of the Amazon store. HDTracks, by the way, offers AIFF downloads, which are natively supported in all Apple devices.

 

Seriously though, the reason they support only a limited number of audio formats is most likely far more complex than just iTunes playback. Any system-supported audio file type has to work reliably across all their pro and consumer apps, most of which use audio in some form or another. If they are required to support a format like FLAC, over which they have no control (unless they get involved in development of it, which would be of no benefit to them given they developed ALAC), if there is a serious security flaw (hello Java! Hello Flash!) or some other serious issue, they are entirely dependant on the developers fixing the problem before they can fix iOS or Mac OS X.

 

Even though you are correct about Apple being in battle with other companies for music sales, that has next to stuff-all to do with lack of FLAC support.

post #83 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by pablobell View Post

How do you explain Apple not selling ALAC in the iTunes store?

That's a good question! Probably because the majority of their users are using mobile devices now and would make the mistake of downloading the larger ALAC's and creating a customer issue down the road. It took alot just for itunes to go 256k from 128. I don't buy music from that store..or rarely at least..(giftcards).

post #84 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


I actually prefer Asio in bit for bit on Media Monkey. For some reason Wasapi sounds warmer to my ears while Asio has more treble detail. Most of my IEMs are on the warmer side so this is quite noticeable to me. But out of all my players cPlay sounds the best.

WASAPI shouldn't sound like anything. It bypasses the Windows mixer and streams the data directly to the source. WASAPI "event style" is the more advanced version, which allows for software control (EQ, digital volume etc..) while retaining direct data streaming performance. JRiver has it, Foobar does not currently..or Media Monkey.

 

I could never make ASIO work in my system. It is much more picky in terms of the outboard hardware.

post #85 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

That's a good question! Probably because the majority of their users are using mobile devices now and would make the mistake of downloading the larger ALAC's and creating a customer issue down the road. It took alot just for itunes to go 256k from 128. I don't buy music from that store..or rarely at least..(giftcards).

a specialist store would be nice. 

Despite the fact that (uk prices) £7.99 album would probably (yeah it does) cost less to purchase the CD and rip it yourself from Amazon. 

Apple would probably raise the lossless price to £9.99 and only do it for select purchases. 

 

The iTunes store unfortunately isn't designed for the likes of you and me, just the non-discerning yoof wiv der beats init.

bit of a shame really, I've got some lp's I love from the iTunes store, stuck at 128kb/s... GAH. 

 

If you've purchased the tracks on iTunes but are stuck in 128/256kb/s, anyone know the legality of getting the uncompressed versions from your local favourite bittorrent tracker? 

I suppose you've paid for the license to listen to the tracks but is that limited to the compressed versions? 

post #86 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ru57y View Post

I've got some lp's I love from the iTunes store, stuck at 128kb/s... GAH. 

If you've purchased the tracks on iTunes but are stuck in 128/256kb/s, anyone know the legality of getting the uncompressed versions from your local favourite bittorrent tracker? 
I suppose you've paid for the license to listen to the tracks but is that limited to the compressed versions? 

If you still have iTunes music at 128k, it's pretty easy to get the 256k version from Apple. They do charge a small fee (I think).
post #87 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post


If you still have iTunes music at 128k, it's pretty easy to get the 256k version from Apple. They do charge a small fee (I think).

but 256k is still a bit crappy... why pay for DVD quality when you have the capability for Blu-Ray? 

post #88 of 149
The fee is very small, and it may stop you from complaining so much wink.gif
post #89 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

The fee is very small, and it may stop you from complaining so much wink.gif

it's human nature to be disappointed with anything less than 500kb/s :P

post #90 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvandyk View Post

WASAPI shouldn't sound like anything. It bypasses the Windows mixer and streams the data directly to the source. WASAPI "event style" is the more advanced version, which allows for software control (EQ, digital volume etc..) while retaining direct data streaming performance. JRiver has it, Foobar does not currently..or Media Monkey.

 

I could never make ASIO work in my system. It is much more picky in terms of the outboard hardware.


 I know it "shouldn't" but in comparison to ASIO to my ears they are noticebly different in presentation with WASAPI being fuller sounding, warmer with the treble not being as prominent. This is on my DACport LX in bit for bit mode.

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