hi, i'm pretty new to lossless codecs (i've only recently got a big HDD) and i've got an idea of what types there are and what they do, but what i'd like to know is which one is best considering compatibility with a range of devices....
eg. i use i-tunes to manage my library and put music on my ipod, but i also use WMP to just quickly play some files (without going thru the whole itunes procedure of adding them) and then i also have a frontloader mp3 player in my car which (i think) kinda only plays mp3's
basically i'm just asking for some advice/overview
thanks in advance!!
Full Version: Advice on picking a lossless codec (iPod/WMP)
Take a look at the wiki.
Your supplimentary information appears to have little relevance! Bearing in mind that it is very easy to convert from lossless formats I would select a lossless codec for archiving, and keep doing what you're doing in other areas. There's little point in using lossless on an iPod IMHO, and your MP3 car stereo will play MP3 files I suspect. That leaves WMP, which I can't really comment on.
Do you want lossless for playing or simply archiving?
Edit: Topic title amended. Please reread TOS #6.
Your supplimentary information appears to have little relevance! Bearing in mind that it is very easy to convert from lossless formats I would select a lossless codec for archiving, and keep doing what you're doing in other areas. There's little point in using lossless on an iPod IMHO, and your MP3 car stereo will play MP3 files I suspect. That leaves WMP, which I can't really comment on.
Do you want lossless for playing or simply archiving?
Edit: Topic title amended. Please reread TOS #6.
If you want archiving then FLAC or Wavepack would probably be best. If you want easy integration with iTunes then Apple lossless would be best. If you want to use your lossless files with WMP then WMA lossless would be best.
As previously stated, it all depends on your usage of these lossless files. Keep in mind that iTunes can convert WMA lossless files to Apple lossless, wav, AIFF, mpeg-4 AAC, and mp3. Note that the iTunes mp3 encoder is not the best one out there.
Personally, I have an iPod and I use iTunes dialy. I find that the extra 5 second steps that it takes to add media to my library is worth not having to deal with WMP as it likes to take control of everything and it can even update tag information without you know thus changing things in iTunes. I use FLAC for all my archiving purposes and I use foobar2000 to convert my FLAC files to the mp3 format using Lame 3.97b2. I can also convert my FLAC files to mpeg-4 AAC using both Nero's and iTunes's AAC encoders. foobar2000 give me a range of both lossy and lossless encoders to use. There are plug-ins available so you can read Apple lossless files in foobar2000 but there are only two programs that can encode ALAC files: iTunes and dbpoweramp.
As previously stated, it all depends on your usage of these lossless files. Keep in mind that iTunes can convert WMA lossless files to Apple lossless, wav, AIFF, mpeg-4 AAC, and mp3. Note that the iTunes mp3 encoder is not the best one out there.
Personally, I have an iPod and I use iTunes dialy. I find that the extra 5 second steps that it takes to add media to my library is worth not having to deal with WMP as it likes to take control of everything and it can even update tag information without you know thus changing things in iTunes. I use FLAC for all my archiving purposes and I use foobar2000 to convert my FLAC files to the mp3 format using Lame 3.97b2. I can also convert my FLAC files to mpeg-4 AAC using both Nero's and iTunes's AAC encoders. foobar2000 give me a range of both lossy and lossless encoders to use. There are plug-ins available so you can read Apple lossless files in foobar2000 but there are only two programs that can encode ALAC files: iTunes and dbpoweramp.
QUOTE(kornchild2002 @ May 30 2006, 17:31) 
If you want archiving then FLAC or Wavepack would probably be best. If you want easy integration with iTunes then Apple lossless would be best. If you want to use your lossless files with WMP then WMA lossless would be best.
As previously stated, it all depends on your usage of these lossless files. Keep in mind that iTunes can convert WMA lossless files to Apple lossless, wav, AIFF, mpeg-4 AAC, and mp3. Note that the iTunes mp3 encoder is not the best one out there.
Personally, I have an iPod and I use iTunes dialy. I find that the extra 5 second steps that it takes to add media to my library is worth not having to deal with WMP as it likes to take control of everything and it can even update tag information without you know thus changing things in iTunes. I use FLAC for all my archiving purposes and I use foobar2000 to convert my FLAC files to the mp3 format using Lame 3.97b2. I can also convert my FLAC files to mpeg-4 AAC using both Nero's and iTunes's AAC encoders. foobar2000 give me a range of both lossy and lossless encoders to use. There are plug-ins available so you can read Apple lossless files in foobar2000 but there are only two programs that can encode ALAC files: iTunes and dbpoweramp.
cool, so thanx, well i've been stuffin around with compression types etc. i've decided on archiving all my music in apple lossless (on dvds) n then converting them to whatever format i might need when i wanna play them on a device or something
why do you personally prefer FLAC? as far as i know (tho i might be wrong) apple lossless provides better compression (smaller files) than FLAC...
1 FLAC is supported on everything that we can think of
2 ALAC is only supported on *NIX due to reverse engineering
3 it only makes sense to use ALAC if you have an ipod
4 ALAC sounds too much like AFLAC, and that duck is annoying
...i might have just made #4 up...
later
2 ALAC is only supported on *NIX due to reverse engineering
3 it only makes sense to use ALAC if you have an ipod
4 ALAC sounds too much like AFLAC, and that duck is annoying
...i might have just made #4 up...
later
QUOTE(xmixahlx @ Jun 19 2006, 14:09)
4 ALAC sounds too much like AFLAC, and that duck is annoying
...i might have just made #4 up...
Haha. Nice. I think FLAC sounds much more like "AFLAC," though.
QUOTE(xmixahlx @ Jun 19 2006, 20:09)
1 FLAC is supported on everything that we can think of
2 ALAC is only supported on *NIX due to reverse engineering
3 it only makes sense to use ALAC if you have an ipod
4 ALAC sounds too much like AFLAC, and that duck is annoying
...i might have just made #4 up...
later
*NIX? unix?
but what does the support range of a codec matter if your only using it to archive?
wouldn't the criteria then be the size of the file?
i mean, i wouldn't put my ALAC files on my ipod cos they'd just take up too much space
does FLAC work on ipods?
QUOTE(bobthedinosaur @ Jun 19 2006, 12:55)
as far as i know (tho i might be wrong) apple lossless provides better compression (smaller files) than FLAC...
ALAC does not provide better compression than FLAC, it tends to be slightly worse on average than FLAC 1.1.2 and unless apple has something up their sleeve, the gap will widen with the next FLAC release.
Josh
QUOTE(jcoalson @ Jun 20 2006, 01:59)
QUOTE(bobthedinosaur @ Jun 19 2006, 12:55)
as far as i know (tho i might be wrong) apple lossless provides better compression (smaller files) than FLAC...
ALAC does not provide better compression than FLAC, it tends to be slightly worse on average than FLAC 1.1.2 and unless apple has something up their sleeve, the gap will widen with the next FLAC release.
You sure know how to make a cliffhanger, Josh
QUOTE(bobthedinosaur @ Jun 19 2006, 11:55)
cool, so thanx, well i've been stuffin around with compression types etc. i've decided on archiving all my music in apple lossless (on dvds) n then converting them to whatever format i might need when i wanna play them on a device or something
why do you personally prefer FLAC? as far as i know (tho i might be wrong) apple lossless provides better compression (smaller files) than FLAC...
I chose FLAC because it has been around for awhile and it is compatible with foobar2000. Apple lossless can only be directly decoded (read) with foobar2000. I wanted to have the ability to freely convert between lossless and lossy formats. If I planned on putting my lossless music on my iPod then I would have used Apple lossless. Lately, I have been converting my FLAC files to Apple lossless so that I could use them in my documentary (I am using Final Cut on the Mac OS).
Apple lossless is still good as it offers easy iTunes and iPod integration. iPods can play FLAC files but you have to install RockBox on the iPod. RockBox is still being worked on for iPods and I don't recomend using it.
If you're only considering archiving lossless on a Windows machine, I'd suggest Monkey's Audio with the compression level set to high.
MAC creates smaller files than any other codec that has been mentioned so far.
Just about any software player that can play flac can also play Monkey's Audio.
Considering that you are only using WMP and iTunes choosing flac over MAC will do nothing more than cost you additional drive space since, AFAIK neither of these players supports either format.
If you're using iTunes to create your lossy files to go on your iPod and would also like to use it to create lossy files from lossless files, I'd say go with Apple lossless.
Based on what the original poster's criteria, flac isn't a very good suggestion no matter how popular it may be around these parts.
MAC creates smaller files than any other codec that has been mentioned so far.
Just about any software player that can play flac can also play Monkey's Audio.
Considering that you are only using WMP and iTunes choosing flac over MAC will do nothing more than cost you additional drive space since, AFAIK neither of these players supports either format.
If you're using iTunes to create your lossy files to go on your iPod and would also like to use it to create lossy files from lossless files, I'd say go with Apple lossless.
Based on what the original poster's criteria, flac isn't a very good suggestion no matter how popular it may be around these parts.
QUOTE(pepoluan @ Jun 19 2006, 14:16)
Oooooo Josh... so you're saying next FLAC version will up the compression ratio?
yep, a little bit, you can read more about it here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=44229
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.