[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
SteveC;163396 Wrote: > Yes. I thought so too until recently. I have happily ripped 16000 tracks > in 320 kbps MP3 and now I accidentally discovered that a few quiet piano > tracks have artefacts that are easily audible, such as burbling hiss > background, once I am clued in. Damn!! > > So I set up a playlist consisting of Glenn Gould Bach Goldberg > recording from 1981, just track 1, encoded either as 320 kbps mp3, or > FLAC. The encoding is not obvious from the track name. I simply give > the remote to someone, show them how to flip between the two, and ask > them to play them until they are happy that one sounds better. > Meanwhile, I live the room. > > So far 3/3 can 100% detect the difference, mainly due to the hiss, but > we also suspect that piano sound is slightly affected in the harmonics. > But I can't really live with this extra hiss on certain recordings, so > I'm faced with selective re-ripping, maybe of all the classical. Steve C, It doesn't surprise me you heard a dif, But we were talking about Apple Lossless (ALAC) compared to FLAC, Those 2 should sound identical. They should be bit identical. The 320kbps mp3 is a lossy format . It sould be inferior whether it's AAC or mp3. AAC is not Apple Lossless, that's ALAC -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
highdudgeon;161137 Wrote: > Has anyone seriously and honestly compared EAC rips to good 'ole iTunes > and Apple Lossless? The way to do this would be to have a friend over, > I think, and play the tracks without telling him/her which is which. > That would just help you do a reality check. > > I'm using iTunes exclusively -- in part out of convenience -- but my > sound is wonderful and I don't find it lacking. Yes. I thought so too until > recently. I have happily ripped 16000 tracks in 320 kbps MP3 and now I accidentally discovered that a few quiet piano tracks have artefacts that are easily audible, such as burbling hiss background, once I am clued in. Damn!! So I set up a playlist consisting of Glenn Gould Bach Goldberg recording from 1981, just track 1, encoded either as 320 kbps mp3, or FLAC. The encoding is not obvious from the track name. I simply give the remote to someone, show them how to flip between the two, and ask them to play them until they are happy that one sounds better. Meanwhile, I live the room. So far 3/3 can 100% detect the difference, mainly due to the hiss, but we also suspect that piano sound is slightly affected in the harmonics. But I can't really live with this extra hiss on certain recordings, so I'm faced with selective re-ripping, maybe of all the classical. -- SteveC SteveC's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=665 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Scanning this thread for the first time today, I was struck that nobody posted the obvious (which should be said, even if everybody knows it): EAC supports ripping to the WMA Lossless format. The generated files are not copy protected. The difference between using EAC and WMP for ripping is that you can control the accuracy of the rip with EAC. I use EAC to rip WMA Lossless files. I like the integration with WMP, and I figure I can always transcode to FLAC if Microsoft sneaks DRM in through the back door at some time in the future (which I doubt). For those of you interested in doing this, I will add that in my setup there is a bug somewhere in the ripping chain that leads to the track numbers not getting filled in (I am told the datatype written is inaccurate). I correct this with MP3TAG, but I find that MP3TAG needs to write the track number TWICE for the update to stick. Robert -- RobertH RobertH's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5765 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
highdudgeon;161137 Wrote: > Has anyone seriously and honestly compared EAC rips to good 'ole iTunes > and Apple Lossless? The way to do this would be to have a friend over, > I think, and play the tracks without telling him/her which is which. > That would just help you do a reality check. > > I'm using iTunes exclusively -- in part out of convenience -- but my > sound is wonderful and I don't find it lacking. It would be much easier just to do a bit comparison on the audio streams. They're lossless - they should be identical. -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Has anyone seriously and honestly compared EAC rips to good 'ole iTunes and Apple Lossless? The way to do this would be to have a friend over, I think, and play the tracks without telling him/her which is which. That would just help you do a reality check. I'm using iTunes exclusively -- in part out of convenience -- but my sound is wonderful and I don't find it lacking. -- highdudgeon Relax. It's about the music. highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Mark Lanctot;160516 Wrote: > > This isn't so far fetched at all. They're itching to get the Fair Use > debate in the courts. Once it's declared illegal, they can charge for > every copy you require, whether it's a physical CD or digital file. > Something like this happened with taping radio. Eventually congress passed a law which explicitly legalized it, ending the recording industry's efforts to prosecute people for it. Imagine the uproar if they tried to make CD rips illegal and/or subject to some fee - people would scream far louder than they did in any debate over tapes from radio. I can't imagine politicians sitting still in that case, no matter how much money the RIAA threw at them (but then again I'm an optimist by nature). -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
tomjtx;160153 Wrote: > I hope not. I have about 500 CD's and counting, I would hate to have to > re-rip:-( Modulo apple hacking your files and redering them useless (an event I consider far less likely than any number of other things which could destroy them) you can always find a program which will batch convert ALAC to some other lossless or lossy format. So even if ALAC at some point ceases to be supported by some device you care about, you can just convert your library to FLAC or whatever with minimal effort. Or you could even do it now as an insurance policy of some kind. In any case, no need to re-rip. -- opaqueice opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
ceejay;160540 Wrote: > Some sensible proposals from the lawmakers in the UK, at least... > > "The law will also be amended so that consumers can legitimately > transfer music for their own use, for example from a CD they have > bought to an MP3 player." > > http://business.guardian.co.uk/prebudgetreport2006/story/0,,1966201,00.html > > Ceejay That's an issue because we don't have it already - there are no fair play rules here in the UK. The US has them now, but seems hell-bent on getting rid of them! -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost cables adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Some sensible proposals from the lawmakers in the UK, at least... "The law will also be amended so that consumers can legitimately transfer music for their own use, for example from a CD they have bought to an MP3 player." http://business.guardian.co.uk/prebudgetreport2006/story/0,,1966201,00.html Ceejay -- ceejay ceejay's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=148 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
geraint smith;160156 Wrote: > Even if Apple could, by some fiendish means, (like the one Radish > suggests - Nightmare!) retrospectively slap DRM on stuff that's already > been ripped to ALAC, they'd be mad to try it. How could they possibly > know what had been legally, and what illegally, coded into it? Think of > the lawsuits! Media companies believe that Fair Use is an outmoded, illegal concept and will probably mount a legal challenge against it. This could be just the thing to get this rolling - to deem *all* ripped content illegal and use a new version of a ripping program to automatically, retroactively and irreversably DRM all ripped files. If this was ever challenged in court, they would then have their legal fight to prove that Fair Use is illegal, and would probably win with their massive legal funds, judges and politicians they have in their pockets. This isn't so far fetched at all. They're itching to get the Fair Use debate in the courts. Once it's declared illegal, they can charge for every copy you require, whether it's a physical CD or digital file. In fact, this has already happened. MusicGiants used to have a sneaky feature that would search out MP3s on your hard drive and charge you for a lossless WMA DRM-laden download version of it, whether you asked it to or not. That "feature" was removed without much fanfare. But if Apple introduces something like this into iTunes it'll give them the attention they want on this issue. In the interim, to ensure hardware revenue, they could be sneaky and make sure that any ripped content is automatically/irreversably DRMed "for your protection" and can thus only be played back on an iPod. -- Mark Lanctot Mark Lanctot's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2071 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
tomjtx;160212 Wrote: > Itunes exists for PC and I assume PC Itunes uess ALAC so I assume ALAC > works on PC as well. > Yes, it does, in iTunes. When looking around I've seen little support for it outside of Apple products though. -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Itunes exists for PC and I assume PC Itunes uess ALAC so I assume ALAC works on PC as well. (this brilliant piece of reasoning brought to you by my Jesuit high school training) All that tuition finally paid off:-) -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
tomsi42;160177 Wrote: > I woudn't bet on it. The Microsoft Zune let's you send a music fil to > another user. The copy gets DRM'ed and can only be listened to three > times (in three days). No matter what the original file comes from! > Legal or not... And Apple is more DRM-happy than MS. > > Tom That last point is highly debatable - especially in the light of the very example you give! And in any case that's not retrospective. Users know (or will have had the opportunity to find out) before they do it that that is what will happen. The same would not be true of retrospectively applying DRM to existing ALAC files. There are good reasons not to (the main one being "lawyers") and none that I can see that would outweigh them on the other side. I would bet against that, and I think my money would be pretty safe. I'd bet against the iTunes store selling DRM'ed ALAC as well. I think they're more likely to raise the bitrate on protected AAC, perhaps charging a premium for the better quality, if they do anything - although given the phenomenal success of crappy bitrates and lossy formats, why would they bother? -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Deaf Cat;159947 Wrote: > H I know they are both lossless but I did listen to a few tracks in > both wma and flac over and over and over, and it was only slight, but I > thought the bass on the flac was a little tighter and the treble everso > slightly clearer and more detailed. > But hay, thats me - so I went with flac. > > I know theoretically they should be the same...There are both lossy and > lossless WMA algorithms. If you were comparing lossy WMA to FLAC, it is quite possible you would have heard a difference. If you truly mean the less widely supported lossless WMA, then ... well, as you say, that's you. -- tom permutt tom permutt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1893 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
geraint smith;160156 Wrote: > Yes, I'd say so, and yes, it certainly looks like a non-issue to me. > Even if Apple could, by some fiendish means, (like the one Radish > suggests - Nightmare!) retrospectively slap DRM on stuff that's already > been ripped to ALAC, they'd be mad to try it. How could they possibly > know what had been legally, and what illegally, coded into it? Think of > the lawsuits! > I woudn't bet on it. The Microsoft Zune let's you send a music fil to another user. The copy gets DRM'ed and can only be listened to three times (in three days). No matter what the original file comes from! Legal or not... And Apple is more DRM-happy than MS. Tom -- tomsi42 SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre. tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Mitch Harding;160159 Wrote: > Whenever you burn to a music CD, AFAIK the music is converted into PCM > format before burning. So the source format doesn't matter much > (except, of > course, if you are using lossy -- then your resulting CD will only be > as > good as the original file). > > For example, I use WinAmp sometimes to burn CDs from playlists that I > create. These playlists frequently have both mp3s and FLAC files in > them. > First WinAmp converts them all to PCM, and then it burns the CD. So I > don't > think any file format has an advantage in terms of CD burnability. > > If you're talking data CDs, though, that's different. I imagine very > few CD > players that can play music from data CDs can handle FLAC -- but I've > never > owned one, so I don't really know if this is true. > > > > > [/color] De! A lacuna in the brain! Thanks Mitch. Of course, there's no reason Flac would not convert to PCM. Stupid of me. Is it my imagination, or are senior moments coming earlier this year? -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Whenever you burn to a music CD, AFAIK the music is converted into PCM format before burning. So the source format doesn't matter much (except, of course, if you are using lossy -- then your resulting CD will only be as good as the original file). For example, I use WinAmp sometimes to burn CDs from playlists that I create. These playlists frequently have both mp3s and FLAC files in them. First WinAmp converts them all to PCM, and then it burns the CD. So I don't think any file format has an advantage in terms of CD burnability. If you're talking data CDs, though, that's different. I imagine very few CD players that can play music from data CDs can handle FLAC -- but I've never owned one, so I don't really know if this is true. On 12/6/06, geraint smith < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aiff certainly works natively on Slimserver just as well as FLAC, (and much better than WAV because of the latter's untaggability). However, it also has all of ALAC's advantages over FLAC if one happens to be a Mac and/or iPod user, and it burns a high quality CD (although, thinking about it, I've never tried this with Flac. Does Flac play in an ordinary domestic/car CD player?) It seems silly not to have the extra versatility, even though Aiff eats iPod storage like there's no tomorrow. Which is why I use both, I suppose! -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
tomjtx;160134 Wrote: > So maybe it's a non issue. I don't think Apple can "put DRM" on my ALAC > files retroactively and ALAC will have DRM IF it's sold through > ITunes. > Since I would never buy from ITunes or any DRM site I should be safe in > using ALAC to rip my CD's..right? Yes, I'd say so, and yes, it certainly looks like a non-issue to me. Even if Apple could, by some fiendish means, (like the one Radish suggests - Nightmare!) retrospectively slap DRM on stuff that's already been ripped to ALAC, they'd be mad to try it. How could they possibly know what had been legally, and what illegally, coded into it? Think of the lawsuits! ALAC works with SlimServer, iPods and Macs, (don't know about PCs because I hardly use one for music, and when I do I use FLAC); iTunes app. makes tagging it a piece of cake; it saves 50 per cent of the space you'd use on an uncompressed format like WAV or AIFF; and if Apple does ever decide to drop it, because it is lossless it should be possible to convert it into any codec that might replace it - and iTunes already converts it easily into AIFF, keeping its tags, at the touch of a mouse. All that said, I personally prefer AIFF, despite the penalty in disc space. I get the impression (although this may be wrong - I haven't analysed or checked it) that I've had more problems with ALAC on a Squeezebox than with Aiff, possibly because SlimServer has to transcode it on the fly. Aiff certainly works natively on Slimserver just as well as FLAC, (and much better than WAV because of the latter's untaggability). However, it also has all of ALAC's advantages over FLAC if one happens to be a Mac and/or iPod user, and it burns a high quality CD (although, thinking about it, I've never tried this with Flac. Does Flac play in an ordinary domestic/car CD player?) It seems silly not to have the extra versatility, even though Aiff eats iPod storage like there's no tomorrow. Which is why I use both, I suppose! -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
radish;160144 Wrote: > Sure they can: > > "iTunes v7.3 is installing, please wait while we enhance your files" > > Of course, I really don't think they will, but it is possible. The real > issue with ALAC is not DRM however, it's the relative lack of support > for it in non-Apple products and the non-openness of the format. The > latter issue is partly to blame for the former, and becomes a > particular problem if/when Apple decide to drop the format and move to > something else. A lossless archive is only useful if you can > play/convert it at will. But is it really likely to be a concern? > Probably not. I hope not. I have about 500 CD's and counting, I would hate to have to re-rip:-( -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
tomjtx;160134 Wrote: > So maybe it's a non issue. I don't think Apple can "put DRM" on my ALAC > files retroactively Sure they can: "iTunes v7.3 is installing, please wait while we enhance your files" Of course, I really don't think they will, but it is possible. The real issue with ALAC is not DRM however, it's the relative lack of support for it in non-Apple products and the non-openness of the format. The latter issue is partly to blame for the former, and becomes a particular problem if/when Apple decide to drop the format and move to something else. A lossless archive is only useful if you can play/convert it at will. But is it really likely to be a concern? Probably not. -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
geraint smith;160125 Wrote: > A big "if" but "if" it ever does - yes, agreed, an odds on cert, I'd > have thought. But so far, I've never come across an ALAC track with any > active DRM, and the Wikipedist says ALAC's only "thought to have" the > capability, which implies a lack of examples there, too. It seems > therefore that as things currently stand, DRM is "never" rather than > "not always" used on ALAC. As we know all too well, though, AAC tracks > most commonly do have active DRM - but not always, eg if you rip the > file yourself. So maybe it's a non issue. I don't think Apple can "put DRM" on my ALAC files retroactively and ALAC will have DRM IF it's sold through ITunes. Since I would never buy from ITunes or any DRM site I should be safe in using ALAC to rip my CD's..right? -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
radish;160118 Wrote: > The last line there is what I was talking about: > > "by the nature of the container, it is thought that DRM can be applied > to ALAC much the same way it can with other files in QuickTime > containers" > > it's the container that does the DRM, and the container for ALAC is the > same as AAC, thus DRM is possible even if it's not used right now. If > iTunes ever starts selling lossless tracks, you can bet they'll be > DRM'd up the wazzoo. A big "if" but "if" it ever does - yes, agreed, an odds on cert, I'd have thought. But so far, I've never come across an ALAC track with any active DRM, and the Wikipedist says ALAC's only "thought to have" the capability, which implies a lack of examples there, too. It seems therefore that as things currently stand, DRM is "never" rather than "not always" used on ALAC. As we know all too well, though, AAC tracks most commonly do have active DRM - but not always, eg if you rip the file yourself. -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
The last line there is what I was talking about: "by the nature of the container, it is thought that DRM can be applied to ALAC much the same way it can with other files in QuickTime containers" it's the container that does the DRM, and the container for ALAC is the same as AAC, thus DRM is possible even if it's not used right now. If iTunes ever starts selling lossless tracks, you can bet they'll be DRM'd up the wazzoo. -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
radish;159959 Wrote: > It has the capability to carry DRM in the file format, doesn't mean it's > always used (e.g. it's not if you rip the file yourself). There seems to be some confusion, or at least, the potential for it here, between AAC (Advanced Audio Codec, as used in its protected form in iTunes) and ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec). ALAC "does not utilize any digital rights management scheme" (but see below) and is lossless. AAC (which is not lossless) utilises Fairplay DRM if purchased from iTunes, (when it is known as AAC Protected), but is not so protected if one rips it oneself. This from Wikipedia: "Apple Lossless data is stored within an MP4 container with the filename extension .m4a. While Apple Lossless has the same file extension as AAC, it is not a variant of AAC, but uses linear prediction similar to other lossless codecs such as FLAC and Shorten. iPods with a dock connector (not the Shuffle) and recent firmware can play Apple Lossless-encoded files. It does not utilize any digital rights management (DRM) scheme, but by the nature of the container, it is thought that DRM can be applied to ALAC much the same way it can with other files in QuickTime containers." Geraint. -- geraint smith geraint smith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=625 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
radish;159959 Wrote: > It has the capability to carry DRM in the file format, doesn't mean it's > always used (e.g. it's not if you rip the file yourself). Which is the same for Windows Media Player where the "Copy protect music" check mark is not enabled by default (even if I assume that record companies would like it to be). Both Apple and MS no doubt realise that if they did enable DRM by default, use of their media players would plummet. -- bergek Transporter - Squeezebox 3 - Serener GS-L02 - Via EPIA SP8000 bergek's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7805 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
tomjtx;159949 Wrote: > I don't think Apple Lossless(ALAC) has copy control. > I rip my CD's with ALAC and I've burned CD's from that ALAC copy. It has the capability to carry DRM in the file format, doesn't mean it's always used (e.g. it's not if you rip the file yourself). -- radish radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
random_tox;159928 Wrote: > Though there is widespread support for WMA, isn't it Microsoft's > proprietary format with copy control built in? Same deal with Apple > Lossless? > > .WAV is basically uncompressed digits from the CD. EAC is just one of > many tools to rip a CD to .wav that happens to be popular for the error > handling features. Personally I find CDex much easier to use, and have > out of 1200+ CDs, never found a disc that EAC handled the errors any > better. > > Then yes, .FLAC is the way to go. .APE and .WV are also lossless > options with tags, but I like the way .FLAC decompresses and plays with > less work for the processor and you can edit tags while the file is > playing. I don't think Apple Lossless(ALAC) has copy control. I rip my CD's with ALAC and I've burned CD's from that ALAC copy. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
H I know they are both lossless but I did listen to a few tracks in both wma and flac over and over and over, and it was only slight, but I thought the bass on the flac was a little tighter and the treble everso slightly clearer and more detailed. But hay, thats me - so I went with flac. I know theoretically they should be the same... -- Deaf Cat Deaf Cat's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=515 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Coffee;159838 Wrote: > Is there a big difference in sound quality between WMA lossless produced > by Windows Media Player and WAV files produced by EAC? ... Though there is widespread support for WMA, isn't it Microsoft's proprietary format with copy control built in? Same deal with Apple Lossless? .WAV is basically uncompressed digits from the CD. EAC is just one of many tools to rip a CD to .wav that happens to be popular for the error handling features. Personally I find CDex much easier to use, and have out of 1200+ CDs, never found a disc that EAC handled the errors any better. Then yes, .FLAC is the way to go. .APE and .WV are also lossless options with tags, but I like the way .FLAC decompresses and plays with less work for the processor and you can edit tags while the file is playing. -- random_tox __ www.discogs.com/user/Random_Tox www.discogs.com/user/Random_Digits random_tox's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2096 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Coffee;159838 Wrote: > Is there a big difference in sound quality between WMA lossless produced > by Windows Media Player and WAV files produced by EAC? WAV files don't > have song info (or at least that's what I see) so I can't browse by > album or date, etc Both are both lossless formats so there should be no difference in sound quality, however EAC seems to be better at ripping damaged CDs so that could in theory produce a better sounding rip. WAV files do not support tags, which is why you don't see any song info. FLAC is probably your best bet (as has already been said). -- dSw dSw's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=362 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: WMA lossless vs EAC
Get EAC to run the FLAC encoder, then you can add tags to your heart's content. It can do this automatically as you rip. Help is at hand: http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?EACBeginners HTH Adam -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost cables adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=30325 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
