Best SW for playing back ALAC that IS NOT iTunes or QuickTime?

[DrBenway]

Hi.

I've recently started playing ALAC files for the first time. Peter Gabriel's new download service offers ALAC as its only choice of format. Since Winamp apparantly wont play them, I downloaded and installed both iTunes and QuickTime, against my better judgement.

Almost immediately, my firewall started reporting that a process called MDNSRseponder.exe was making requests for Internet access. Alarmed, I did some online research and discovered that this is related to iTunes file sharing.

I need this like I need a hole in the head.

Can someone point me to software (a safe, verified WinAmp plugin would be welcome) that plays ALAC files, aside from iTunes and/or Quicktime? I have had miserable experiences with both of these packages in the past and would like to find an alternative.

Failing that, is there a package that will non-destructively convert ALAC files to .WAVs or FLACs?


Yeesh. As I was typing that last sentence, MDNSResponder attempted to get out again. Third time in ten minutes.

 

[ozstrike]

You could try foobar, but I think it also requires a plugin for ALAC. It will also convert to FLAC or WAV.

dbPoweramp is also often suggested for conversion.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozstrike /img/forum/go_quote.gif You could try foobar, but I think it also requires a plugin for ALAC. It will also convert to FLAC or WAV. dbPoweramp is also often suggested for conversion.

Thanks for the suggestions!

I've got an older version of Foobar, but I'm going to update it and reexamine it, as so many people on Head-Fi seem to use it and like it.

As it turns out, I had recently installed KMPlayer, which I was using for DVD playback only; I really use the WinAmp/MediaMonkey combo for almost all of my audio. Just for grins, I gave it a try a few minutes ago. Long story short, KMPlayer, which is completely free, plays back ALACs without complaint. Don't yet know whether I am getting full quality, but at least it opens and plays the files. I thought maybe it was piggybacking on iTunes or QT, but I've uninstalled both and so far it seems to be working fine.

Go figure.

 

[Shoreman]

foobar2000 (foobar2000) (my recommendation) along with http://foobar2000.org/components/foo_input_alac.zip

or Winamp ([size=x-small]alac.w5s)[/size]. Both will play ALAC flawlessly.

Along with dbPoweramp (my recommendation also) foobar will also do conversions.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoreman /img/forum/go_quote.gif foobar2000 (foobar2000) (my recommendation) along with http://foobar2000.org/components/foo_input_alac.zip or Winamp ([size=x-small]alac.w5s)[/size]. Both will play ALAC flawlessly. Along with dbPoweramp (my recommendation also) foobar will also do conversions.

I'm a little confused. I've got Winamp v.5.531, and it wont play the ALAC files with .m4a extension that I've been trying to load. Does alac.w5s refer to a different version of the codec...?

Edit: Note to myself: Google before whining.I found the plugin you suggested in the Most Requested Features / Plug-ins area in the user forum at Winamp.com. Downloaded it, unzipped as instructed, and am currently playing an ALAC file in WinAmp. I will definitely still re-examine Foobar and take a look at dBPowerAmp as well. Thanks again!

Thanks, ozstrike and Shoreman, for the great suggestions. Problem solved. Ya gotta love Head-Fi. It's mandatory.

 

[koto-in]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi. Almost immediately, my firewall started reporting that a process called MDNSRseponder.exe was making requests for Internet access. Alarmed, I did some online research and discovered that this is related to iTunes file sharing. I need this like I need a hole in the head. Yeesh. As I was typing that last sentence, MDNSResponder attempted to get out again. Third time in ten minutes.

You just need to set your iTunes preferences...

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by koto-in /img/forum/go_quote.gif You just need to set your iTunes preferences...

Thanks, but iTunes is already gone from my system. I loaded it only because I had no other way of playing the handful of ALAC files that I have purchased. Now that I can play them in WinAmp and KMPlayer, I have no use for iTunes.

I have not yet been assimilated into the iBorg, and I certainly don't pay for 128K downloads, so I really have no use for this software. I understand that other people use and love it, but it's not for me.

 

[royalcrown]

If you have no use for iTunes, and you're not going to ever be using an iPod for playback, I think you can convert ALAC to FLAC losslessly - and I know that FLAC works well on winamp. That's a consideration if you prefer to stick with winamp.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalcrown /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you have no use for iTunes, and you're not going to ever be using an iPod for playback, I think you can convert ALAC to FLAC losslessly - and I know that FLAC works well on winamp. That's a consideration if you prefer to stick with winamp.

That's a good idea, for the sake of consistency. I'm often annoyed by the alphabet soup of formats that I've got on my disk. The FLAC plugin for WinAmp does work very well, and I 've got a fairly large library of files that I use it for. But for the time being I think I'll leave the few ALAC files as they are, since someone in this thread pointed me to a WinAmp plugin for ALAC that seems to work fine. You are right, though, I probably should convert to FLAC at some point, since FLAC is a non-commercial standard and I won't have to worry about ALAC becoming obsolete at some point in the future.

It would certainly be great if all providers of lossless files would standardize on FLAC, just as lossy providers have more or less made MP3 a de-facto standard. I do wonder why Peter Gabriel would have chosen ALAC rather than FLAC for his new venture. Perhaps Apple is some kind of silent partner?

 

[poo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have not yet been assimilated into the iBorg...

Come Dr, join us... join us...

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by poo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Come Dr, join us... join us...

I've calmed down quite a bit in my opinions about the iBorg, to be truthful. I am at peace with other people's choices, no matter how much I disagree with them. And there is a lot to like about the device; the interface design is very, very good, for example.

I will join when:

1) The iPod sprouts a lineout that doesn't require the purchase or do-it-yourself construction of a LOD.

2) The iPod is sold with user-replaceable battery. Yeah, I know, it's possible, but way too difficult for the average consumer. In this day and age it's insulting that an expensive product like this is basically designed to be discarded and replaced every few years, while still in perfectly sound working condition. Not very green, is that? Unless you count the mountain of green accumulating in Jobs's bank account.

3) The lock on iTunes is broken, so that iTunes files can be used on players from other makers.

4) iTunes offers at least VBRs, if not lossless files. The VBRs that I get from eMusic cost roughly $0.25 each, and they sound, to me, much better then 128k files. Even better are the files I've started downloading from Peter Gabriel's new subscription service. If he can sell ALACs, why can't iTunes? It's their format, after all...

So for the moment, I'm continuing to resist...

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif If he can sell ALACs, why can't iTunes? It's their format, after all...

You haven't been paying attention if you haven't seen the fights between Jobs and the labels. Exactly how much do you want to be paying for those lossless compressed tracks?

It is good to see how unbiased you are in your comments against Apple though.

 

[Clutz]

You're free to use whatever Digital Audio Player you want to use, but I don't understand not wanting to use an iPod for reasons #3 and #4, as they have nothing to do with the iPod or the iTunes audio player, and only affect the choice of where to buy your music downloads from (e.g. iTunes Music Store). The iTunes Music Store is just Apple's way of selling music, and you're not tied to using it if you have an iPod or use iTunes.

Since you can use MP3s purchased online at other stores with the iPod, not getting an iPod because you can't use music purchased at the iTunes Music store on another player seems somewhat illogical to me. Although I can see not wanting to use an iPod because of the lack of a line out jack or a user replaceable battery though - but I can't imagine Apple ever adding either of those things to the iPod.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif You haven't been paying attention if you haven't seen the fights between Jobs and the labels. Exactly how much do you want to be paying for those lossless compressed tracks? It is good to see how unbiased you are in your comments against Apple though.

Oh I pay attention, I assure you. Last I looked, all of the major labels had announced that they would sell, or have begun selling, unprotected MP3s. I read with interest the open letter Jobs published some months ago in which he called for sales of unprotected files. Where's the followthrough?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutz /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're free to use whatever Digital Audio Player you want to use, but I don't understand not wanting to use an iPod for reasons #3 and #4, as they have nothing to do with the iPod or the iTunes audio player, and only affect the choice of where to buy your music downloads from (e.g. iTunes Music Store). The iTunes Music Store is just Apple's way of selling music, and you're not tied to using it if you have an iPod or use iTunes.

I vote with my wallet, and I choose to vote against the way Apple does business. It's apalling to me that the hegemony of iTunes has established 128K lossy files as the de facto standard for the sale of music. As has often been pointed out, the iPod is not just a player; it's an entire ecosystem. There's no arguing with successs, and, as I previously said, everyone has the right to his or her choices. I choose not to participate.

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh I pay attention, I assure you. Last I looked, all of the major labels had announced that they would sell, or have begun selling, unprotected MP3s. I read with interest the open letter Jobs published some months ago in which he called for sales of unprotected files. Where's the followthrough?

You mean the unDRMed 192 kbps files sold through iTunes? That might be the followthrough? The labels are spreading their services now with deals to dilute the power the iTunes store had in dictating prices against the labels. This is all well documented and why wouldn't they want to avoid sharing power with distrubutors? There's plenty to criticize Apple for, but I think you're casting the net quite large here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif I vote with my wallet, and I choose to vote against the way Apple does business. It's apalling to me that the hegemony of iTunes has established 128K lossy files as the de facto standard for the sale of music. As has often been pointed out, the iPod is not just a player; it's an entire ecosystem. There's no arguing with successs, and, as I previously said, everyone has the right to his or her choices. I choose not to participate.

Yes, the previous net standard of 128 MP3 or WMA was so much superior. Just keep in mind if you're taking into account history and voting with your wallet that knocks out most current services (including eMusic which which started out 128 mp3 and all WMA services which did the same with WMA, though Real hit 192 quickly).

Really if you got over your anti-Apple rant you'd see how they're not the bad guys (unsurprisingly it's still the RIAA and labels), and have actually helped keep prices stable and one of the first to support lossless and line-out features. Shop elsewhere, there are a lot of good players (software and hardware) players out there, but i don't get the ahistorical argument.