FLAC vs. Apple Lossless
Oct 5, 2009 at 2:35 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 43

cruizin caleb

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
299
Likes
15
So I use the plugin (Set Oggs) for iTunes that allows you to import and play FLAC files in iTunes. The thing is, this doesn't mean I can play FLAC files on my iPod. But i CAN play Apple Lossless on my Ipod... oh and does it matter? like can iPods properly deliver the soundquality Lossless audio has to offer?

So.... this may be a dumb question and i am a bit of a newbie but, am I losing anything by converting my approx1000kbps FLAC files into approximately 1000kbps Apple Losseless Files in iTunes?

Same goes for my CDs, am I losing anything by ripping them as Apple Lossless files instead of ripping them in FLAC format using some other program?


basically
FLAC vs. Apple Lossless

smily_headphones1.gif


please excuse my noobishness...
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 2:52 AM Post #2 of 43

El_Doug

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Posts
3,450
Likes
107
theyre lossless, dude - you wont "lose" anything by switching between different lossless codecs
wink.gif



since decoding a lossless file yields the original uncompressed file, any algorithm for compressing/decompressing will give the same result
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 2:56 AM Post #3 of 43

roebeet

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Posts
577
Likes
18
Lossless means no data loss, so you aren't losing anything by converting from one lossless format to another.

As to whether ALAC actually sounds better than FLAC can be a very subjective question.
icon10.gif
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 3:05 AM Post #4 of 43

ZoNtO

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Posts
1,111
Likes
157
Lossless is lossless is lossless.
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 6:21 AM Post #5 of 43

Malakai

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
12
Likes
0
FLAC is a free and open codec. Apple's is not.

Go with FLAC.
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 6:26 AM Post #6 of 43

tds101

Formerly known as nywytboy68
Joined
May 5, 2008
Posts
4,629
Likes
106
Quote:

Originally Posted by Malakai /img/forum/go_quote.gif
FLAC is a free and open codec. Apple's is not.

Go with FLAC.



Since when does an iPod play FLAC (without RockBox)? The OP want's to convert for use on his iPod.

Convert between lossless codecs to your hearts content, there's no loss in quality. As everyone else has stated, lossless is lossless.
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 7:01 AM Post #7 of 43

Malakai

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
12
Likes
0
Ah I was saying in general. I do not use an Ipod. I will only buy portable digital players that support FLAC and/or Ogg.

The thread title was apple vs flac lossless. Since both decoded yield the original file, the only thing that matters is stuff like freedom of the codec and such. And I prefer a freely available open codec to an apple proprietary one. Ipod is not the only DAP on the market
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM Post #8 of 43

tds101

Formerly known as nywytboy68
Joined
May 5, 2008
Posts
4,629
Likes
106
But the question posed by the OP must be considered. It's not what I, or you, use as a preferred codec.
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 7:13 AM Post #9 of 43

AdamWysokinski

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Posts
235
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by cruizin caleb /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Same goes for my CDs, am I losing anything by ripping them as Apple Lossless files instead of ripping them in FLAC format using some other program?


Do you lose anything when converting from zip to rar? No. The same applies to lossless codecs.
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 4:25 PM Post #10 of 43

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,764
Likes
74
You will not loose any sound quality by transcoding from FLAC to Apple Lossless.
But you gain a not when it comes to software/hardware support, as Apple Lossless files is supported both in iTunes (natively), iPods, and more... For you that is.
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 5:56 PM Post #12 of 43

tds101

Formerly known as nywytboy68
Joined
May 5, 2008
Posts
4,629
Likes
106
Quote:

Originally Posted by insyte /img/forum/go_quote.gif
@OP - just go for ALAC since it will be more convenient for you


ALAC is Apple Lossless Audio Codec,...................
confused.gif
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 6:00 PM Post #13 of 43

bba1973

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Posts
681
Likes
13
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZoNtO /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Lossless is lossless is lossless.


No, it's not. With regular 2 channel 16 bit audio (normal CD to lossless), they're all going to sound exactly the same. Some formats don't support 5.1 or hi-res. Also, some lossless formats have better size compression than others. If lossless is lossless is lossless, iPods and Zunes would be able to play FLAC or SHN with their stock firmware.
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 6:11 PM Post #14 of 43

henryflower

New Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Posts
13
Likes
0
I don't think that ALAC not being "Free" or "Open" is much of an issue, given that there are free (and not Apple authored) software solutions for transcoding from one to the other.

One additional distinction between lossless formats which should not be overlooked is how they handle tagging.
 
Oct 5, 2009 at 6:18 PM Post #15 of 43

MCC

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Posts
1,300
Likes
17
Quote:

Originally Posted by ZoNtO /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Lossless is lossless is lossless.


Well... usually. I ran into a nasty bug in dbPowerAmp on Windows 7 that caused some FLAC-WMA Lossless conversions to go awry. ALWAYS VERIFY your lossless-lossless transcodings. Unless, of course, you enjoy having "lossless" files that sound like 128k MP3.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top