Which lossless format is best?
Nov 11, 2005 at 2:28 PM Post #31 of 45
Well I never knew AIFF was uncompressed. I might change over. But I just have a folder with Artist Name - Song Title. Which is one reason I was considering moving to FLAC. Can dbPowerAMP convert to AIFF? Also I am guessing there will be no change in sound quality because they are both uncompressed.
 
Nov 11, 2005 at 3:22 PM Post #32 of 45
I use FLAC, and an occasional .wav. I prefer FLAC though because it sounds the same as .wav, and it's lots smaller.
 
Nov 11, 2005 at 3:32 PM Post #33 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nospam
Umm... Have you taken a close look at converting between encoding formats in iTunes? It's really quite a simple process. I rip all my CDs into Apple Lossless, then convert them to 320AAC for use on my iPod. It doesn't get much simpler.

You just go to "Preferences" and select the encoding format, then select the songs you want to convert, go to the "Advanced" menu, and select "Convert to xxx" (where xxx is whatever you selected in "Preferences").

Granted, you're limited to whatever encoding formats iTunes supports (no Ogg, for instance), but if you use an iPod, that's not an issue.

Now, if you want to use Foobar, then FLAC would seem to be the obvious choice.



I must be dense because I can not find it. Which version of Itunes are you using? I use 6.01

Thanks,

Miguel
 
Nov 11, 2005 at 9:11 PM Post #34 of 45
I personally rip the whole CD to one wav file using EAC and let it create a cue file with the song information, then convert the wav to ape. Playing the cue file works great in Foobar and even searching is just as fast as with single mp3 tracks (on my athlon 64 3000)
icon10.gif
The good thing with this solution, you always have a perfect 1:1 backup of your CDs
cool.gif
 
Nov 12, 2005 at 5:05 PM Post #36 of 45
Well the best value hdd for me is 250GB. It is about $130 CAD for 250GBs.

1024 MB = 1 GB roughly

1024 * 233 (Number of space actually ona 250GB) = 238592

238592 / 700 MB (CD space) = 340.85

340.85 * 12 (Roughly number of songs on a CD) = 4090 songs in Wave on a 250GB.

340 * $14.99 (Price of average CD in CAD) = 5096.60 + $130 = $5226.60 CAD

Which means I don't even have enough money to fill my hdd with music anyway so I can store it in waves and run out fo money before space.
 
Nov 12, 2005 at 7:56 PM Post #37 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter
I prefer FLAC (.flac), as it still gets pretty good compression rates and is easy to decode no matter what compression level you use, and this along with the fact that it's a totally open source format has led to a fair amount of portable player support (Rio Karma, iRiver H-series, several iAudio players).

Your iPod doesn't support either, though, and if you already use iTunes as your main music player, then I guess there's not a whole lot of reason not to use Apple Lossless.



Is ripping cd's to .wav files the only option if you want to have only one lossless format on your hard drive and use it for both itunes and an iaudio player?
Are there advantages to apple lossless and flac that im losing if i go with wav?
I use itunes and Im quite happy with it, and im looking into buying an iaudio player. I dont think want to get foobar either. I'd like to avoid any unnecessary converting if possible. Since this is so closely related to this topic i figured i wouldnt create another thread.
 
Nov 12, 2005 at 8:07 PM Post #38 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainfreeze
Is ripping cd's to .wav files the only option if you want to have only one lossless format on your hard drive and use it for both itunes and an iaudio player?
Are there advantages to apple lossless and flac that im losing if i go with wav?
I use itunes and Im quite happy with it, and im looking into buying an iaudio player. I dont think want to get foobar either. I'd like to avoid any unnecessary converting if possible. Since this is so closely related to this topic i figured i wouldnt create another thread.



Sadly, the answer to this question seems to be yes. Perhaps there are similar players that support AIFF, but not the iAudio.
 
Nov 12, 2005 at 8:22 PM Post #39 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duckspeak
Sadly, the answer to this question seems to be yes. Perhaps there are similar players that support AIFF, but not the iAudio.


bummer
 
Nov 12, 2005 at 8:58 PM Post #40 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan
I use Monkey’s Audio (APE): the user interface is simple, and it works so seamlessly with my favorite player, J River Media Center.


‘Course it does. APE is developed by Matt of J. River (a developer)
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Nov 12, 2005 at 9:20 PM Post #41 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duckspeak
Vote for Apple Lossless for above-mentioned reasons: it's easy and it's fast and it's supposedly optimized for iPod playback.

Conversion is almost as easy as it gets, although it kind of annoys me how it interlaces the converted files with the originals--good solution to that is to make a smart playlist that orders all of your songs by when they were added to your library. Then just do a conversion and all the new files are lined up nicely in that playlist. (of course, to delete again, you need to do something clever--I change the Artist field for all those files to "BALEETED!" and then go back to the library view for the kill)

...the best solution, of course, is to bend iTunes to your will using Python scripts...



Or you could just set the View Options to see compression and then simply make it so that 320 or lossless is all put into one. THEN BALLLLEEEETE.

I have an Apple Lossless and 320 kbps AAC library. I just have it because thats what iPod works with. I have heard great praise for AAC, so thats good. But, I think in terms of quality none of these lossless are worse. So, you might as well go for the one that is most conveint. Trust me, re-ripping you whole library already takes so long, that you don't want to make it any more complicated with other things.
 
Nov 13, 2005 at 7:14 PM Post #43 of 45
I have heard (or I guess read) some people dissing WMA lossless as not truly a lossless codec. Well I ran a test to prove it and WMA Lossless did produce 100% bit for bit perfect copies. If you care, you can read a further description here: http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=146736
 
Nov 14, 2005 at 6:02 AM Post #45 of 45
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainfreeze
...Are there advantages to apple lossless and flac that im losing if i go with wav?...


Well, the big one for me is that WAV doesn't support tags. Also, ALAC and FLAC both produce smaller size files.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top