My first DAP: AAC320 or Flac?
Jan 4, 2019 at 7:29 PM Post #32 of 50
Glmoneydawg said:
I'm 58....this streaming thing is a huge step for me...being able to pick individual tunes off albums that i wouldn't normally play because the rest of the album is weak,swapping genres for a song or 2 ...huge....i tend to let one song lead me to the next ...from blues rock to blues to jazz to classical to metal or punk...very cool and convenient.
Click to expand...
The streaming paradigm is here to stay, eh. For songs that I really like, I seek out the disc, buy it, rip it, and store it.
 
Jan 4, 2019 at 8:05 PM Post #33 of 50
I have Amazon unlimited music and it's OK, but nowhere near my library. My musical interests are so varied, streaming services all seem like "greatest hits" to me. I want to dig deeper.
 
Jan 19, 2019 at 8:40 AM Post #34 of 50
If you have the space for FLAC, why not use that? I'm not saying I can tell a difference, but it just seems like another step to encode everything to lossy files rather than just listening to the original lossless file.
 
Jan 19, 2019 at 10:35 AM Post #35 of 50
stonesfan129 said:
If you have the space for FLAC, why not use that? I'm not saying I can tell a difference, but it just seems like another step to encode everything to lossy files rather than just listening to the original lossless file.
Click to expand...

@stonesfan129, people ask @bigshot that a lot and it turns philosophical with no obvious right or wrong. I think in the end it's a judgment call and it's not that important. So I'll try to give you my response by branching out in about 20 different directions.

I wonder one thing--if you go lossless do you not have to choose between FLAC and ALAC? Because I and my family for example move between Apple and Windows and Android ecosystems as a matter of course. It seems the lossless format incompatibility would be a bit of a pain in the neck.

Also @bigshot FWIW I find the Apple Music and Spotify streaming services go a bit deeper for my tastes than Amazon music (I've tried them all except Tidal), and Spotify hits the nail on the head most often for me, but if your CD collection goes even deeper than that more power to you!

Also I was amazed to read how well @KeithEmo did on the @bigshot listening test, and am extremely confident (expectation bias!) I would do no where near as well based on my past experiences testing myself.

Additionally it occurs to me I started ripping my library over 20 years ago (I am very slowly and systematically picking through my CDs to find ones I haven't ripped now when I feel like it, it's tedious) so I have lots of what would under today's standards be considered less than ideal rips but honestly they sound great to me anyway. Nothing from the rips themselves even bothers me in terms of sound quality. I am not going to rip them all over again when copies of so much of my music that are transparent to me are floating around in streaming services all over the place.

And for most of my music Apple matches it and gives me an Apple Music AAC 256 kbps copy to keep for free with my Apple Music subscription, so that is much more likely to be transparent, and Spotify has a nice 320 kbps Ogg Vorbis version of it waiting up there in the cloud for me if it's a big deal, which it's not. Having the actual CD is nice because you get the booklet and you can rip to super-high quality. Having the LP cover is even cooler. But there are rich troves of info on nearly anything on the net that may well surpass what came with most of the original packages.

Plus I wouldn't be too surprised if in ten years Apple or someone else is giving us lossless copies if we subscribe to Apple Music or whatever other service so I feel like Apple or someone else may get me there to lossless archives eventually anyway in a much more automated and less tedious way.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2019 at 10:51 AM Post #37 of 50
stonesfan129 said:
@Steve999 If you use Apple devices, then it makes sense to use ALAC. I think there are some slight file size compression differences but for the most part they are just different means to achieve the exact same result.
Click to expand...

This I know. But what if my family of 5 uses my library and they use all ecosystems. . . Linux, Ios, OSX, android, Windows, etc. Then what. .. ALAC, FLAC, or is either a massive waste of time and effort? I vote massive waste of time and effort based on what little I know.:)

Whereas AAC or MP3 gets everything where it needs to be for everyone for the long haul.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2019 at 3:27 PM Post #38 of 50
Neither ALAC nor FLAC are supported cross platform universally. That is one big reason why I use AAC at a data rate that insures audible transparency. I can play AAC files on just about anything. I can't play FLAC easily on my Mac and I can't play ALAC on some of my friends' equipment.

The other big advantage is file size. I can take a huge library of AAC files with me on a microSD card plugged into my iPhone. It's like having just about any music I want at all times and it takes up no space in my pocket along with a line out cable. With that, I can have access to a massive library anywhere I go. With lossless I would have to keep updating and rotating to maintain that kind of selection.

As for the future of file downloads, I don't think we'll see lossless downloads. In the past, the market has always chosen convenience when embracing formats. I don't see the average person really caring if a file is lossless. They only want it to sound great and be convenient. Inaudible completeness only appeals to OCD audiophiles.
 
Last edited:
Jan 19, 2019 at 3:56 PM Post #39 of 50
Steve999 said:
This I know. But what if my family of 5 uses my library and they use all ecosystems. . . Linux, Ios, OSX, android, Windows, etc. Then what. .. ALAC, FLAC, or is either a massive waste of time and effort? I vote massive waste of time and effort based on what little I know.:)

Whereas AAC or MP3 gets everything where it needs to be for everyone for the long haul.
Click to expand...
the general rule of thumb is to do things for apple, because you know Apple is not famous for bothering to try and increase compatibility. sort of the exact opposite TBH. that's how they have users to keep purchasing other apple gears, because of how closed their system is. so you often don't have much choice when you use various systems but to make things compatible with your Apple gears, and then look at how to make the rest also compatible with the right settings or app.
 
Jan 19, 2019 at 4:03 PM Post #40 of 50
ALAC is actually an open format isn't it? It isn't Apple's fault that PCs don't support Apple's lossless format as widely as FLAC. I think it goes both ways.
 
Jan 19, 2019 at 4:14 PM Post #41 of 50
bigshot said:
ALAC is actually an open format isn't it? It isn't Apple's fault that PCs don't support Apple's lossless format as widely as FLAC. I think it goes both ways.
Click to expand...

When ALAC was introduced in 2004, it was proprietary and required royalty payments. When it transitioned to open source in 2011, FLAC was already well established in the Windows ecosystem.

Apple waited too long to make ALAC open source - I think it’s hard to make the case that “it goes both ways”,
 
Jan 19, 2019 at 6:10 PM Post #42 of 50
Did ALAC go open source after AAC? That format is pretty universal now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top