I am in the process of making an external music server for my home stereo. I have been using EAC but was curious about apples lossless. When I rip a cd into eac it is the same size as the data on the cd. When I rip to apple lossless it is considerably smaller. I thought lossless was lossless why would it be a compressed file then? Is apple lossless really lossless?

thanks
taam

I don't know anything about Apple Lossless, but compression schemes can be either lossy or lossless. Since they're "compression" schemes the files will be smaller. But once a lossless scheme is decoded, you get back the exact copy of what it started out as.

Ed

k that makes some sense ill look into that more.

thanks
taam

EAC doesn't use a compression scheme, lossy or lossless...It's a ripper...and all it does it rip CD's to WAV files..no compression no anything. It's known for its accuracy when ripping a CD.

apple lossless on the other hand is a compression algorithm.

apples to oranges.

Did you hear that a Sony BMG exec/attorney recently said their opinion is that no one is entitled to make a copy of music you have purchased?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58030

I am in the process of making an external music server for my home stereo. I have been using EAC but was curious about apples lossless. When I rip a cd into eac it is the same size as the data on the cd. When I rip to apple lossless it is considerably smaller. I thought lossless was lossless why would it be a compressed file then? Is apple lossless really lossless?

EAC doesn't use a compression scheme, lossy or lossless...It's a ripper...and all it does it rip CD's to WAV files..no compression no anything. It's known for its accuracy when ripping a CD.

apple lossless on the other hand is a compression algorithm.

apples to oranges.
As Plincoln points out "EAC" is not a type of file. It stands for "Exact Audio Copy" and it is a ripping program that rips the audio files, unaltered, from a CD onto your hard drive as .WAV files. .WAV files are not compressed. They're the same exact files that are on the CD.

Apple Lossless is a compression algorithm that will compress .WAV files, losslessly, so that they don't take up as much space as the native .WAV files. And, yes, Apple Lossless is truly lossless.

Did you hear that a Sony BMG exec/attorney recently said their opinion is that no one is entitled to make a copy of music you have purchased?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58030

Yeah well my opinion is that Sony can suck my....

Anyway, if you've been just ripping CD's to .wav files you should compress them and save some space. FLAC is a popular choice, but any lossless format will work. And yes, even though the file size is smaller and the bit rate is lower it really is the same as the .wav file it came from.

I am in the process of making an external music server for my home stereo. I have been using EAC but was curious about apples lossless. When I rip a cd into eac it is the same size as the data on the cd. When I rip to apple lossless it is considerably smaller. I thought lossless was lossless why would it be a compressed file then? Is apple lossless really lossless?

thanks
taam

'Lossless' refers to a data compression scheme, so of course the compressed version will be smaller than the straight rip. That's the whole reason for it. But in this case you only compress the file, you don't lose any data. You can 'decompress' it back to full size any time.

Yeah well my opinion is that Sony can suck my....

Anyway, if you've been just ripping CD's to .wav files you should compress them and save some space. FLAC is a popular choice, but any lossless format will work. And yes, even though the file size is smaller and the bit rate is lower it really is the same as the .wav file it came from.

Just a quibble, not sure why you included lower bitrate, that will be unchanged. The file when played back is uncompressed and is identical in all respects as the original PCM (or whatever the file may be), including bitrate. It's 1:1 identical.

Just a quibble, not sure why you included lower bitrate, that will be unchanged. The file when played back is uncompressed and is identical in all respects as the original PCM (or whatever the file may be), including bitrate. It's 1:1 identical.
I don't think that the poster was saying that the decoded bit rate (ie sample rate * sample resolution) is lower. He's saying that the bitrate of the compressed data stream will be lower than what the uncompressed data would be.

Ed

While EAC is an exact audio ripper, it does allow for an external compression algorithm to be used, and I would say intended. Personally, I follow the 'MP3 for playback, FLAC for archive' frame of mind. EAC produces a great rip, and using a LAME codec along with the EAC rip produces some really great MP3's. I don't see a benefit in playing back a FLAC as opposed to the original CD, so if it's all about space vs. quality, a high quality MP3 is probably better. (I cannot hear a difference between a V0 MP3 rip with a LAME codec and a FLAC recording...I might even be hard pressed to hear the difference between a V0 LAME MP3 and the original uncompressed version....)

Using a 'program' called MAREO, you can use EAC to rip to MP3 and FLAC at the same time...well not simultaneously, but one right after the other.

As Plincoln points out "EAC" is not a type of file. It stands for "Exact Audio Copy" and it is a ripping program that rips the audio files, unaltered, from a CD onto your hard drive as .WAV files. .WAV files are not compressed. They're the same exact files that are on the CD.

Apple Lossless is a compression algorithm that will compress .WAV files, losslessly, so that they don't take up as much space as the native .WAV files. And, yes, Apple Lossless is truly lossless.

Apple Lossless = FLAC

Apple Lossless = FLAC

Not according to Wikipedia.

Ed

Just a quibble, not sure why you included lower bitrate, that will be unchanged. The file when played back is uncompressed and is identical in all respects as the original PCM (or whatever the file may be), including bitrate. It's 1:1 identical.

Bitrate is dependent on file size. Fire up Winamp, or whatever you use, and play back a FLAC file. Then play the same song from a .wav file. The FLAC will show a lower bitrate.

Lower bitrate does not mean lower quality. Compression will always reduce bitrate, but as long as it's not lossy the end result will be the same.

The reason I put that in is I've seen that question about a million times from people using lossless for the first time. Most players calculate bitrate from the size of the file, and they get freaked out when it shows a lower bitrate from CD.

Not according to Wikipedia.

Ed

well, in terms of audio quality, lossless = lossless. So in that sense, Apple Lossless = FLAC = any other lossless data compression algorithm.

Not according to Wikipedia.

Ed

When will people learn that Wikipedia is a fount of miss-information and downright lies....

well, in terms of audio quality, lossless = lossless. So in that sense, Apple Lossless = FLAC = any other lossless data compression algorithm.Yes I agree that the end result will be the same. But the equal sign meant that the compression schemes are identical. According to Wikipedia it apparently is not.

Ed

When will people learn that Wikipedia is a fount of miss-information and downright lies....I don't really know whether Apple Lossless = FLAC or not. But I'd believe a Wiki article before I believed any single individual here. Certainly Wikipedia has errors, but presumably over time an article will have errors weeded out.

I'm willing to listen - do you have support for your claim?

Ed

While EAC is an exact audio ripper, it does allow for an external compression algorithm to be used, and I would say intended. Personally, I follow the 'MP3 for playback, FLAC for archive' frame of mind. EAC produces a great rip, and using a LAME codec along with the EAC rip produces some really great MP3's. I don't see a benefit in playing back a FLAC as opposed to the original CD, so if it's all about space vs. quality, a high quality MP3 is probably better.

It's all about convenience, if not, I wouldn't rip CDs at all. I've got all my CDs stored on my NAS in a mix of WMA Lossless and FLAC. By having all my music on my NAS I can instantly, and randomly access any of my music. I use J River Media Center, which supports smartlists, so I can listen to say, 4-5 star Rock Songs and it will automatically build a unique playlist based on that criteria. I can't even imagine listenning to CDs one at a time anymore.

Now here's a question for you, if you've got the CD and the FLAC rip, why would you listen to the MP3 instead? Or, if you've got the MP3 rip and you listen to that, what's the point of the FLAC rip?

(I cannot hear a difference between a V0 MP3 rip with a LAME codec and a FLAC recording...I might even be hard pressed to hear the difference between a V0 LAME MP3 and the original uncompressed version....)

The FLAC and original are bit for bit identical when played back, I'd hope you don't hear a difference between the FLAC and the original.

Did you hear that a Sony BMG exec/attorney recently said their opinion is that no one is entitled to make a copy of music you have purchased?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58030

Guess I might as well stop buying Sony/BMG CD's. I never listen to CD's.
I buy them and put them on my computer. If that is considered stealing,
I might as well steal without buying it first!

Apple Lossless = FLAC
Apple Lossless = ALAC

I don't really know whether Apple Lossless = FLAC or not. But I'd believe a Wiki article before I believed any single individual here. Certainly Wikipedia has errors, but presumably over time an article will have errors weeded out.

I'm willing to listen - do you have support for your claim?

Ed

Well for starters Apple lossless was made by, surprise, Apple. FLAC on the other hand is open source and was definitely not made by Apple.

The only way they could literally be the same program is if Apple stole FLAC and changed the name. If they did nobody would really care since FLAC is open source anyway. But I really doubt it for two reasons.

1. They were both released at about the same time.

2. Apple Ipods don't play FLAC files. If Apple lossless was identical to FLAC they could easily support FLAC files for playback, which might make a difference to some buyers. But they don't.

(It actually is possible to play FLAC files on Ipods, but only by running hacked software)

Apple Lossless and FLAC are two of many (different) lossless encoding algorithms.

Not identical but FLAC and ALAC are VERY similar. FLAC was around well before Apple Lossless. I think I might have used FLAC before iPods, even. When did iPods come out?

FLAC is NOT the same as ALAC (the end result is the same - lossless compression).
Sometimes I wish Apple had adopted FLAC as its standard lossless compression
instead of ALAC. But ALAC has better tagging. It would have been nice if Apple
had spent its resources to add good tagging to FLAC - hmmm maybe they did - maybe ALAC has FLAC hidden somewhere inside it. . . . We may never know since apparently alac is propriotory. I wish We could have one lossless "standard" that everybody agreed was the best - flac, ape, shn, alac, and probably others, all get the same result soundwise - but none is clearly better than another as near as I can see.

It's all about convenience, if not, I wouldn't rip CDs at all. I've got all my CDs stored on my NAS in a mix of WMA Lossless and FLAC. By having all my music on my NAS I can instantly, and randomly access any of my music. I use J River Media Center, which supports smartlists, so I can listen to say, 4-5 star Rock Songs and it will automatically build a unique playlist based on that criteria. I can't even imagine listenning to CDs one at a time anymore.

Now here's a question for you, if you've got the CD and the FLAC rip, why would you listen to the MP3 instead? Or, if you've got the MP3 rip and you listen to that, what's the point of the FLAC rip?



The FLAC and original are bit for bit identical when played back, I'd hope you don't hear a difference between the FLAC and the original.

I would do a quality rip to V0 MP3 to store in my iPod or iPod touch or whatever limited space device I have.

I listen to a widely varied musical array, and listening to songs in random does not appeal to me. It's very hard to listen to something like Harry Connick Jr, and then Dark Tranquility immediately afterwards. I would suppose I'm more of a critical mood listener than a background eclectic listener. But each to his/her own you know, it's all about what makes YOU happy.

I don't really know whether Apple Lossless = FLAC or not. But I'd believe a Wiki article before I believed any single individual here. Certainly Wikipedia has errors, but presumably over time an article will have errors weeded out.

I'm willing to listen - do you have support for your claim?

Ed

I thought it was common knowledge that ALC was based upon FLAC, if not nearly a direct rip off...

I thought it was common knowledge that ALC was based upon FLAC, if not nearly a direct rip off...

Do you have a source for that, or is it rumour and guesses. If one was based on the other it sure would be nice to be able to go between them without having to pass through WAV or AIFF.

I would do a quality rip to V0 MP3 to store in my iPod or iPod touch or whatever limited space device I have.

"Cool" programs (like J River Media Center) will transcode on the fly to portable players, so you don't have to have two copies of your songs lying around.

I listen to a widely varied musical array, and listening to songs in random does not appeal to me. It's very hard to listen to something like Harry Connick Jr, and then Dark Tranquility immediately afterwards. I would suppose I'm more of a critical mood listener than a background eclectic listener.

I know how you feel about that, (and take this as an FYI not a you're doing it wrong) which is why I setup my smartlists by things like Genre. I find it awesome that I can pick a style/genre/type of music to listen to and get a "random" sampling of songs. Kind of like my own personal radio stations, each tuned to a different type of music. You can do smartlists based on last played also, so you can have them setup to only play stuff you haven't listened to in two weeks for example. You can add rating as a parameter so you can limit it to just the songs you really like, or you can go back and revisit the ones you didn't think much of before.

But each to his/her own you know, it's all about what makes YOU happy.

Agreed, and I only posted the above because I find smartlists to be the greatest advance in music playback since the media server. I love that I can listen to any piece of music I own at any moment, without having to find a disc, and more importantly for me, that I can just pick a "type" of music I want to listen to and have a playlist automatically queued up with my parameters accounted for. I'm not trying to say listenning to CDs is wrong, and I'm not advocating just listenning to "random" tracks all day. Just trying to point out some options/technology that I really enjoy that others might not be aware of.

FWIW and off topic, my love of smartlists has cause a bit of trouble for me in looking for a new radio for my car. I hat mix CDs, I dislike normal playlists, and CD changers are just blah, what I really want is JRMC or Squeezebox functionality in my car, but oddly, nobody seems to make such a devices :(

ALAC and FLAC are both linear prediction algorithms -- the basic idea of linear prediction is to look at the last N samples and try to guess the next sample using a linear model which is based on the data. Then you encode the difference between your guess and the actual value of the next sample. The reason this works is because if your model is decent, you can represent the whole file by storing your model plus a string of error sequences, which will be smaller, information-wise, than the original file. I hope this makes some intuitive sense at least. The basic idea is that if you have a good method of guessing, it's quicker to write down your rule for guessing plus your errors than it is to write down all the original data.

I believe the main difference between ALAC and FLAC is that ALAC is adaptive, meaning the model gets updated as the file proceeds, whereas this is not the case with FLAC. I think there are some other tweaks as well.

Exactly, ALAC is a tweak to FLAC, but essentially the algorithm is nearly identical. Of course this all denied, but I have sources that confirm. Take it as you will, I can't provide anything more firm. But I think we all agree that ALAC and FLAC are both good compression schemes.

"Cool" programs (like J River Media Center) will transcode on the fly to portable players, so you don't have to have two copies of your songs lying around.



I know how you feel about that, (and take this as an FYI not a you're doing it wrong) which is why I setup my smartlists by things like Genre. I find it awesome that I can pick a style/genre/type of music to listen to and get a "random" sampling of songs. Kind of like my own personal radio stations, each tuned to a different type of music. You can do smartlists based on last played also, so you can have them setup to only play stuff you haven't listened to in two weeks for example. You can add rating as a parameter so you can limit it to just the songs you really like, or you can go back and revisit the ones you didn't think much of before.



Agreed, and I only posted the above because I find smartlists to be the greatest advance in music playback since the media server. I love that I can listen to any piece of music I own at any moment, without having to find a disc, and more importantly for me, that I can just pick a "type" of music I want to listen to and have a playlist automatically queued up with my parameters accounted for. I'm not trying to say listenning to CDs is wrong, and I'm not advocating just listenning to "random" tracks all day. Just trying to point out some options/technology that I really enjoy that others might not be aware of.

FWIW and off topic, my love of smartlists has cause a bit of trouble for me in looking for a new radio for my car. I hat mix CDs, I dislike normal playlists, and CD changers are just blah, what I really want is JRMC or Squeezebox functionality in my car, but oddly, nobody seems to make such a devices :(

I'll be checking out J river, thanks for the tips. But I do think that the iPod does seed random tracks a bit, if you constantly skip a certain genre on your iPod, I do think it remembers this and seeds accordingly. I would be interested if others can confirm/deny this.

Exactly, ALAC is a tweak to FLAC, but essentially the algorithm is nearly identical. Of course this all denied, but I have sources that confirm. Take it as you will, I can't provide anything more firm. But I think we all agree that ALAC and FLAC are both good compression schemes.

If anyone's interested in more details, here's the link to the guy who wrote an open-source ALAC decoder and a thread discussing it in relation to ALAC.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32111

interesting. thanks

Did you hear that a Sony BMG exec/attorney recently said their opinion is that no one is entitled to make a copy of music you have purchased?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58030

Although it's technically true (you don't own the rights to the songs, just the playback medium), it is a little unfriendly and certainly does not offer Sony the right to install malware on your computer.

please dont insult FLAC with the lame ass apple ****

please dont insult FLAC with the lame ass apple ****
insightful