[El_Doug]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nywytboy68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ALAC is Apple Lossless Audio Codec,...................

of course it is! insyte was just answering the OP's question

 

[CrisG]

Okay, I felt compelled to come in here and say this:

Flac Vs Alac, you won't hear a difference, period.

HOWEVER............ ripping original or even copies of original cd's thru itunes to
get ALAC files is a horrible, horrible decision. The software is terrible at it, period.
Scratch here and there and it craps on everything. Even on a perfectly good
CD, the rips just aren't accurate... they don't sound like the CD would.
I was highly dissapointed when I would put ALAC files on my 5th gen Ipod.
Just.. no magic there.

That was until I decided to run EAC in high priority compressed into FLAC files.
Whereas Itunes would dedicate 1 minute to ripping an entire CD, EAC would
spend up to 20-30 minutes carefully reading bit by bit and re-checking everything after.
When the files were finished, I use dbpoweramp to transcode them to ALAC for my
iPod. I also use dbpoweramp's re-check mode to verify all is ok. The result is amazingly
accurate, lossless quality tracks. So good, in fact, that i immediately erased my 100+ cd
collection off my hard drive ripped from itunes and began slowly ripping with EAC.

It's been extremely rewarding. The detail extracted by EAC has brough new life to all of my cd's. I've caught myself riveted listening to cd's I've always thought sounded "awful"
as new layers come up.

Long story short: if you need ALAC, rip thru EAC and transcode to ALAC; you'l be more than pleased you did. Itunes rip = terrible. EAC rip into Alac = Bliss.

 

[RagingForces]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrisG /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay, I felt compelled to come in here and say this: Flac Vs Alac, you won't hear a difference, period. HOWEVER............ ripping original or even copies of original cd's thru itunes to get ALAC files is a horrible, horrible decision. The software is terrible at it, period. Scratch here and there and it craps on everything. Even on a perfectly good CD, the rips just aren't accurate... they don't sound like the CD would. I was highly dissapointed when I would put ALAC files on my 5th gen Ipod. Just.. no magic there. That was until I decided to run EAC in high priority compressed into FLAC files. Whereas Itunes would dedicate 1 minute to ripping an entire CD, EAC would spend up to 20-30 minutes carefully reading bit by bit and re-checking everything after. When the files were finished, I use dbpoweramp to transcode them to ALAC for my iPod. I also use dbpoweramp's re-check mode to verify all is ok. The result is amazingly accurate, lossless quality tracks. So good, in fact, that i immediately erased my 100+ cd collection off my hard drive ripped from itunes and began slowly ripping with EAC. It's been extremely rewarding. The detail extracted by EAC has brough new life to all of my cd's. I've caught myself riveted listening to cd's I've always thought sounded "awful" as new layers come up. Long story short: if you need ALAC, rip thru EAC and transcode to ALAC; you'l be more than pleased you did. Itunes rip = terrible. EAC rip into Alac = Bliss.

Thumbs up guy. I had similar experience ripping things using rippers other than EAC in the Windows world. I didn't have the added steps of ALAC, but I can agree that EAC works as advertised.

 

[DennyL]

Do FLAC and Apple lossless have the same functionality in terms of number and types of tags they can contain, and whether an image can be embedded in the files?

 

[bba1973]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrisG /img/forum/go_quote.gif Long story short: if you need ALAC, rip thru EAC and transcode to ALAC; you'l be more than pleased you did. Itunes rip = terrible. EAC rip into Alac = Bliss.

Indeed. Make sure you rip in secure mode too. EAC is great, but I find dBpoweramp to be much more user friendly, especially with tags. After all the rips I've done with dBpoweramp in secure mode (~1,500), I've only had one song mess up. Re-ripped it and it worked fine the second time. No problems since then.

 

[AdamWysokinski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennyL /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do FLAC and Apple lossless have the same functionality in terms of number and types of tags they can contain, and whether an image can be embedded in the files?

Yes. Quote from Apple Lossless:

Quote:

Being stored in a m4a file, Apple Lossless files are tagged using the Quicktime / Apple iTunes tagging format, a relatively simple tagging format, supports Unicode characters (UTF-8). Any ID tag name can be added, yet the maximum length of each tag value is 255 characters. Multiple artists, etc are supported as is embedded album art.

 

[Jack Mono]

So then ALAC is just not lossless, now is it? That's what you are saying!

 

[azncookiecutter]

If you do a bit by bit analysis of ALAC and FLAC of the same song, it will turn up the same.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Mono /img/forum/go_quote.gif So then ALAC is just not lossless, now is it? That's what you are saying!

ALAC is hampered by a crappy tagging system, doesn't make it less lossless audio-wise. Lossless only refers to the audio encoding, there's no such thing as a lossless tagging system.

 

[PrarieD0G]

Ah, now I don't know what to believe. Apple Lossless seems like it would be much more convenient since I use an iPod. Wouldn't transcoding them end up taking just as much time (ripping + transcoding)?

iTunes is really that bad at ripping huh? Are no other programs that can rip to ALAC besides iTunes (and are more efficient)? It just seems like overkill to not only re-rip all of my CDs again, but also to have to transcode EVERYTHING...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrisG /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay, I felt compelled to come in here and say this: Flac Vs Alac, you won't hear a difference, period. HOWEVER............ ripping original or even copies of original cd's thru itunes to get ALAC files is a horrible, horrible decision. The software is terrible at it, period. Scratch here and there and it craps on everything. Even on a perfectly good CD, the rips just aren't accurate... they don't sound like the CD would. I was highly dissapointed when I would put ALAC files on my 5th gen Ipod. Just.. no magic there. That was until I decided to run EAC in high priority compressed into FLAC files. Whereas Itunes would dedicate 1 minute to ripping an entire CD, EAC would spend up to 20-30 minutes carefully reading bit by bit and re-checking everything after. When the files were finished, I use dbpoweramp to transcode them to ALAC for my iPod. I also use dbpoweramp's re-check mode to verify all is ok. The result is amazingly accurate, lossless quality tracks. So good, in fact, that i immediately erased my 100+ cd collection off my hard drive ripped from itunes and began slowly ripping with EAC. It's been extremely rewarding. The detail extracted by EAC has brough new life to all of my cd's. I've caught myself riveted listening to cd's I've always thought sounded "awful" as new layers come up. Long story short: if you need ALAC, rip thru EAC and transcode to ALAC; you'l be more than pleased you did. Itunes rip = terrible. EAC rip into Alac = Bliss.

 

[Gremlin Gizmo]

I was just wondering if there is something similar to EAC for the Mac operating system? I've just been using iTunes to rip to ALAC but am always hearing that it is not the best ripping software to use.

 

[Menisk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gremlin Gizmo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was just wondering if there is something similar to EAC for the Mac operating system? I've just been using iTunes to rip to ALAC but am always hearing that it is not the best ripping software to use.

XLD

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrarieD0G /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, now I don't know what to believe. Apple Lossless seems like it would be much more convenient since I use an iPod. Wouldn't transcoding them end up taking just as much time (ripping + transcoding)?

No, it should not.
The ripping part take quite a bit longer time than the encoding part. Hence transcoding should save you quite a bit of time. Not counting all the time needed to feed new CDs into the drive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrarieD0G /img/forum/go_quote.gif iTunes is really that bad at ripping huh? Are no other programs that can rip to ALAC besides iTunes (and are more efficient)? It just seems like overkill to not only re-rip all of my CDs again, but also to have to transcode EVERYTHING...

iTunes is quite bad for scratched CDs, but may do a perfect job for like-new CDs.
Alternatives to iTunes depends on your OS. For Mac OS X look into Max, Rip or XLD. While for MS Windows look into dBpoweramp. They all do ALAC...

 

[PrarieD0G]

Alrighty, thanks for the input krmathis.

EAC seems to be so widely praised, so maybe it'd be worth it to do the 2-step process... Depends on how good/robust dBpoweramp is in comparison, I guess (WinXP user currently). I'll have to do some more research and decide after that.

Then again, maybe I should just stop using iTunes (latest version is soo buggy anyway) and switch over to foobar2000 full-time. Then I could use foobar to play all my FLACs and have iTunes for my lossy files and syncing my iPod. That might be more efficient. I hear foobar actually sounds better too... hmm...

 

[craiglester]

dBPoweramp is just as good as EAC In my experience, but then I keep my CDs in good condition. On the few scratched CD's I have, dBPoweramp has handled them just fine.

 

[Jaska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrisG /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whereas Itunes would dedicate 1 minute to ripping an entire CD, EAC would spend up to 20-30 minutes carefully reading bit by bit and re-checking everything after.

Sorry to say that if accurate rips take 20-30 minutes for you, then your optical drive is terrible. There is no need with even the most paranoid settings in EAC or dBpoweramp Reference for a perfect rip to take more than about 3-5 minutes.