As a digitial DJ (I use Traktor on my Apple Powerbook) and iPod user I have up to now been using 320kbps CBR LAME-encoded mp3s for mixing (and for iPod playback) but have been thinking of re-ripping my CDs to a lossless format such as ALAC or FLAC, for a number of reasons. Both ALAC and FLAC are supported by Traktor, but only ALAC is supported by iTunes and my iPod at present, so I was thinking of using the former (ALAC) - given my circumstances, is this a relatively sensible decision or are there inherrent problems with ALAC?

I know its not ideal, as ALAC is proprietry whilst FLAC is open source etc., but the software support (on Macs anyway) seems much better for ALAC at the moment...

If I do go the ALAC route, will it be possible for me to convert these files to another lossless file format in the future (including preservation of tag information)?


Thanks

Paul

ALAC support on the MAC seems like the feature most useful to you, so i'd use ALAC.

the only inherent problems with ALAC would be those issues similar to all proprietary codecs: software support sucks (as you seem to understand already).

it is possible to convert to any other lossless format. i don't know if any MAC software will preserve the tags (on win32 that would be foobar2000 and dbpoweramp). i'd vote for FLAC or Wavpack.


later

I was using ALAC myself for a while...but I decided to switch to FLAC for a few reasons:

1. iTunes doesn't playback ALACs gaplessly.
2. I like having a single file per disc backup.
3. FLAC has some useful hardware support (for me--Squeezebox 2 and SONOS)
4. ALACs were draining my iPod battery too quickly (I have an old 3G).
5. Although I live/work in a mixed Mac/PC environment, since I want secure rips, etc. it was easier to set up on a PC (with EAC), and FLACs are easily managed there. Not many tools for them on a Mac.
6. When you have 1500+ CDs like I do, your music library has to span multiple volumes if you're using ALAC. iTunes doesn't do so well with this. I have a separate, compressed library for my iPod now that resides on a single volume.

This last reason was probably the primary one that got me looking into switching to a different lossless format. I simply ran out of disk space. And then I got thinking of the proprietary format...and it was the last straw for me.

Sorry. That was kind of a rant.

I believe you would be able to convert from ALACs to another lossless format, I'm just not sure about what method you would use. There are multiple paths to other formats (both lossless and lossy) on a PC using FLACs.

But, if I just had a Mac, I'd probably be stick with ALACs if I wanted a lossless format (which I do), and I'd just deal with the lack of gapless playback.

YMMV.

All points taken (BTW I don't think iTunes plays anything gapless, its not a problem with ALAC as such, but with iTunes). The lack of a decent Mac *and* FLAC compatible player/encoder is the main thing putting me off using FLAC - if iTunes supported FLAC it would be a no brainer...

Paul

Have you seen Cog? I don't know whether it's sufficient for your needs but it does play Flac on OS X.

You might find this thread interesting as well...

he can't playback flac on an IPOD, and that seems to be the limiting factor here. ALAC is supported by everything he will use.


later

Well, he can play it with iPodLinux, but then he won't be able to play AAC and encrypted AAC, and his warranty will be void.

and last I heard iPodLinux doesn't run on 4G ipods (which is what I have...)

iPodLinux isn't really a feasable replacement for the apple firmware.

Are you sure about the warranty issue? Have there been reports of Apple refusing to service an iPod with iPodLinux (IPL) installed?

I twice sent an iBook with Linux (and only Linux) installed on it back to Apple for a warrenty repair, and they fixed it without question. It was only one of the two Apple dealers that questioned it - because they were confused by the Linux login prompt when they tried to test the returned unit. But even then, it was more curiousity than anything else.

I've never used IPL, but it does work on all but the very newest 4G iPods - the final batches of color iPods sold in the last couple of months (before the introduction of the video-capable models) have a slightly different LCD which isn't yet working in IPL.

The IPL website confusingly uses the phrase "unsupported" with reference to 4G iPods to mean that the developers don't want to support people using IPL on a 4G - but it does work. You just need to dig deeper on the website.

Going back to the subject of this thread, I've implemented both FLAC and ALAC decoders as part of the Rockbox project and I would say that they are pretty much equivalent from a technical point of view - neither format has any obivous problems. Being lossless formats, they are by definition both capable of gapless playback (and both are in Rockbox).

FLAC has the obvious advantage of being officially open and having an open source encoder. ALAC has the advantage of better support for Mac users, and has an unofficial open source decoder - meaning that it will always be possible to convert to a different lossless format in the future if you want to.

[QUOTE][quote=Cutestory,Oct 20 2005, 05:36 PM]
[quote=pgroves,Oct 20 2005, 03:14 PM]I know its not ideal, as ALAC is proprietry whilst FLAC is open source etc., but the software support (on Macs anyway) seems much better for ALAC at the moment...


1. iTunes doesn't playback ALACs gaplessly.
2. I like having a single file per disc backup.
3. FLAC has some useful hardware support (for me--Squeezebox 2 and SONOS)
4. ALACs were draining my iPod battery too quickly (I have an old 3G).
5. Although I live/work in a mixed Mac/PC environment, since I want secure rips, etc. it was easier to set up on a PC (with EAC), and FLACs are easily managed there. Not many tools for them on a Mac.
6. When you have 1500+ CDs like I do, your music library has to span multiple volumes if you're using ALAC. iTunes doesn't do so well with this. I have a separate, compressed library for my iPod now that resides on a single volume.

This last reason was probably the primary one that got me looking into switching to a different lossless format. I simply ran out of disk space. And then I got thinking of the proprietary format...and it was the last straw for me.

Sorry. That was kind of a rant.

I believe you would be able to convert from ALACs to another lossless format, I'm just not sure about what method you would use. There are multiple paths to other formats (both lossless and lossy) on a PC using FLACs.

But, if I just had a Mac, I'd probably be stick with ALACs if I wanted a lossless format (which I do), and I'd just deal with the lack of gapless playback.

YMMV.

[/quote][/QUOTE][I][/I]


i don't really understand some of your points:

1. don't care at all about this
2. what do you mean here???
3. i have squeezebox 1 and 2, and all 6000+ of my alac's play perfectly
4. i have noticed this, but i would imagine it's this way with any lossless format on a portable player
5. eac and itunes work effortlessly to rip cd's. itunes rips to alac very quickly as well.
6. why would flac be better than alac as far as storage space? every test i've seen published and personally indicates flac and alac file sizes are nearly identical...

1. He said he's a DJ... of course he cares about this.
2. Cue sheets, I'd guess.

The whole point of DJ'ing is to mix and mash different tunes and not play CD's continually. Besides, setting the crossfade to 0 will be good enough in a club setting if you want gapless.

right, a dj probably would never need gapless playback anyway.

Nope - have to beatmix the tracks myself in any case using Traktor

1. Ok.

2. I like to be able to find all my files for a particular album in one place, and having a single file per disc is the ultimate expression of this credo. My desire for this is fueled by my experience with the iTunes "keep library organized" setting, which splits up tracks from albums with Various artists (for example).

3. Yes, but for playback on SliMP3 and Squeezebox 1, FLACs are transcoded in order to enable playback, putting CPU burden on your slimserver machine. Since my slimserver machine is underpowered, this isn't something I want. Squeezebox 2 supports FLACs natively, in hardware.

4. Correct. Which is why I have a separate lossy library for my portables.

5. iTunes is effortless, but not secure. EAC is not effortless, but secure. Speed is not a concern of mine. I've had a few problems with iTunes rips (clicks, pops, etc.), even using "error correction." In my experience, if EAC reports no errors on a rip, there are none.

6. This is not a filesize issue as much as a library management issue. iTunes doesn't have a good way of dealing with libraries that span more than one drive (i.e., have multiple pathnames). I filled up a 500 GB drive with ALACs, then had to use another drive to add more. That's yucky with iTunes, especially if you're using the "keep organized" setting...files can be moved from their original library location to your current library location, making both file tracking and archiving more difficult. Foobar doesn't care where my files are; they can be in 50 different directories. Separating the ripping process from the playback process is a good idea (for me). I love using iTunes with my lossy library.

I hope that clears things up.

That's why there is a compilation checkbox..


If you have multiple drives, I guess the best thing is to just disable the 'keep library organized' setting, unless you configure the drives as RAID or something like that. I don't see how managing your music is easier in any other app, but whatever floats your boat. Most iTunes complaints I've seen here and elsewhere arise because of ignorance imho.

There are a lot of reasons (for me) not to use iTunes for libraries that span multiple drives. I'm disparaging neither the program, nor those who use it. I use it myself for some purposes. But I am not in a state of "ignorance" about the application or its settings.

These are my choices, based on my needs. As I said in my original post, YMMV.

I no longer use the 'keep library organized' setting. Not that it matters anyway, since I don't really care about where the files exist in my lossy library.

Here's an example of something I don't like about iTunes: if I start iTunes without my library drive mounted (it occasionally happens, since I use firewire drives), iTunes relocates the library location to the default without a warning. If I don't notice the drive isn't mounted, the next time I start ripping discs, it puts them in my home directory (on a Mac, anyway). Then I have to move the files manually back to where they're supposed to be, and re-import them. That's unacceptable.

Switching away from ALACs is a separate issue. After thinking that ALACs were initially a good idea, I moved away from them for a few reasons:

One of my main requirements for a "lossless format" is that the files should be able to be played back gaplessly, either with hardware or software. ALACs do not allow this (and setting a 0 second crossfade in iTunes prefs doesn't work, in spite of what some people say).

Also, I decided I wanted a more open format, so that I had the option of converting to any other format I choose, and I have a number of different choices of software to use to that end. You don't have a lot of choices with ALACs.

iTunes file and library management issues were just the icing on the cake. People talk all day long about how wonderfully easy iTunes is. I agree, but it's not a great file management tool. It just gives me a warm feeling to have a single file for a single album. That's me. Compilations? I for one don't want to have to check a box when I decide to rip a CD just so I can keep all the files on that album together.

And the lack of secure rips...I'll stop there.

iTunes is a great program. It's just not great for doing any serious music archiving or file management, unless you're purely in Lossyland. And if you're a permanent resident of Lossyland, you're not using ALACs, and you don't care about any of this.

If they fixed the gapless playback issue, I might go back for my lossless purposes as well. FLACs give me the flexibility to do that at any time, using a number of different methods to do so.