highdudgeon;162445 Wrote: > Got it. > > Back to FLAC: I have 2 external drives, one 320gb and one 500gb. > Needless to say, I can fit a lot of music on there (and home huge > photoshop files). > > Still, I've tried and tried, but I can't hear any difference between > FLAC and Apple Lossless. So, why not save the space? That's my view of > things, anyway.
You shouldnt hear any difference at all between FLAC, WMA Lossless, Apple Lossless or WAV. They are all lossless, and should produce exactly the same bit stream. There are advantages to FLAC, though: fast forwarding (native support), portability, and cross-platform. WMA Lossless pretty much ties you into a Windows platform, Apple Lossless ties you to Mac and WAV, well, just wastes space and has no tags. Since FLAC is cross-platform you can switch between Windows and MacOS and Linux and FreeBSD and whatever. The only trick to FLAC is that neither iTunes of Windows Media Player likes it. A FLAC file should be roughly the same size as an Apple Lossless or WMA Lossless file. They all have similar compression ratios (and there is some variance on them, of course -- some tracks may compress better with one or the other, but the average size difference is pretty minimal). Use whichever has the tools you like best: you can convert them later. (Just be careful of software upgrades that break things: though I would worry more about that from Microsoft than Apple.) Just don't use WAV. It is icky, fat, and no tags. -- snarlydwarf ------------------------------------------------------------------------ snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30594 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
