Totally free unless you wish to convert to MP3 then there's a license fee (but common, there are a zillion free MP3 solutions out there). Does FLAC to AL and AL to FLAC flawlessly. Windows only. For those who cant't be bothered with such things all future uploads will be in both AL and FLAC, which audiophiles agree offer identical lossless clarity. If you don't believe me, do the research as I did. http://www.dbpoweramp.com/ Dan
I may be a bit naive here, but isn't the term 'lossless' used to indicate that no bytes or bits are lost at all? Then no matter what lossless format you use, they should all be identical. On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Dan Hutchins <danthutchins@gmail.com> wrote:
Totally free unless you wish to convert to MP3 then there's a license fee (but common, there are a zillion free MP3 solutions out there). Does FLAC to AL and AL to FLAC flawlessly. Windows only. For those who cant't be bothered with such things all future uploads will be in both AL and FLAC, which audiophiles agree offer identical lossless clarity. If you don't believe me, do the research as I did. http://www.dbpoweramp.com/
Dan
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
Yes, AL stands for "Apple Lossless" and ALAC stands for "Apple Lossless Audio Codec" which are one and the same thing. Dan On Sep 3, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Mark Howk <link343e@gmail.com> wrote:
Is AL the same as ALAC?
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
Thanks dan. I've never seen ALAC be mentioned as AL. IMHO, DBpoweramp is the best converter on the market today. I say pirate it if you must.
I've used DBPoeramp on th Windows partition of my Mac to convert between WAV, Apple Lossles, FLAC, etc. annd it's totally free unless you want to rip to MP3 then they charge a licence fee; but there's free iTunes for that so why pay? DBPoweramp now supports AAC cinversion for free as well. I give it 5 stars and it's free! Dan On Sep 3, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Mark Howk <link343e@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks dan. I've never seen ALAC be mentioned as AL.
IMHO, DBpoweramp is the best converter on the market today. I say pirate it if you must.
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
Yes you are correct. I use both Windows and Apple for different things so I'm not a shill for Apple, plus I've researched it...there is NO difference in quality between Apple Lossless and FLAC. ZERO! Dan On Sep 3, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Martijn van Rheenen <rheenen@gmail.com> wrote:
I may be a bit naive here, but isn't the term 'lossless' used to indicate that no bytes or bits are lost at all? Then no matter what lossless format you use, they should all be identical.
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Dan Hutchins <danthutchins@gmail.com> wrote:
Totally free unless you wish to convert to MP3 then there's a license fee (but common, there are a zillion free MP3 solutions out there). Does FLAC to AL and AL to FLAC flawlessly. Windows only. For those who cant't be bothered with such things all future uploads will be in both AL and FLAC, which audiophiles agree offer identical lossless clarity. If you don't believe me, do the research as I did. http://www.dbpoweramp.com/
Dan
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
Unlike a converted mp3, a lossless file is only reduced in size but with all the audio information intact. A lossless FLAC/ALAC file can be reconverted to WAV without degrading sound quality. I once converted an ALAC file back to WAV to see if it was truly lossless - the original and the reconverted WAV phased out each other perfectly, so there you go. :) ..::// Thomas Touzimsky "While there are limits to success, your capacity for failure is infinite." - Aaron Williams Am 03.09.2011 um 22:13 schrieb Martijn van Rheenen:
I may be a bit naive here, but isn't the term 'lossless' used to indicate that no bytes or bits are lost at all? Then no matter what lossless format you use, they should all be identical.
Funny that you mention this, the interwebs state that a FLAC file usually compresses into a slightly smaller file than ALAC, but I'm playing around this morning and am starting to discover that ALAC actually produces slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) smaller file size than FLAC. Not dissing FLAC as it's a great format, but audiophiles who know WAY more about this stuff than I have really examined this and and have found both formats are sonically equal and truly lossless. Both formats are also able to handle 24 bit files and beyond. Whilst iTunes is able to play 24 bit ALAC files, I own this cool piece of kit by a company called Wadia that is an iPod dock that extracts the true digital stream from an iPod and passes it off to a receiver/DA convertor via a digital connection. I own the first model that only utilizes a coax digital cable, would love the latest model that has a ton more features and utilizes fiber-optic as well, but once again I'm broke LOL! Anyway, I contacted Wadia to ask if it could handle 24 bit ALAC and they told me every time they tried the iPod crashed! Don't know if this is a shortcoming of the iPod OS or the Wadia, but Steve Jobs has stated that he wants iTunes to move toward selling 24 bit DRM free files so here's hoping! Dan On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Touzimsky <tto@klf.de> wrote:
Unlike a converted mp3, a lossless file is only reduced in size but with all the audio information intact. A lossless FLAC/ALAC file can be reconverted to WAV without degrading sound quality.
I once converted an ALAC file back to WAV to see if it was truly lossless - the original and the reconverted WAV phased out each other perfectly, so there you go. :)
..::// Thomas Touzimsky
"While there are limits to success, your capacity for failure is infinite." - Aaron Williams
Am 03.09.2011 um 22:13 schrieb Martijn van Rheenen:
I may be a bit naive here, but isn't the term 'lossless' used to indicate that no bytes or bits are lost at all? Then no matter what lossless format you use, they should all be identical.
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
Hey Dan, used to own the Wadia (which i sold) and have a Pure music Dock now which does the exact same thing (extract pure digital out from a iOS machine). Limitation is software: iOS does NOT support anything higher than 16bit/48khz files at the moment. So in theory it could change in future updates (though no hope for iOS 5, still same limitations). Cheers, Xav Le dimanche 4 septembre 2011 à 17:42, Dan Hutchins a écrit :
Funny that you mention this, the interwebs state that a FLAC file usually compresses into a slightly smaller file than ALAC, but I'm playing around this morning and am starting to discover that ALAC actually produces slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) smaller file size than FLAC. Not dissing FLAC as it's a great format, but audiophiles who know WAY more about this stuff than I have really examined this and and have found both formats are sonically equal and truly lossless. Both formats are also able to handle 24 bit files and beyond. Whilst iTunes is able to play 24 bit ALAC files, I own this cool piece of kit by a company called Wadia that is an iPod dock that extracts the true digital stream from an iPod and passes it off to a receiver/DA convertor via a digital connection. I own the first model that only utilizes a coax digital cable, would love the latest model that has a ton more features and utilizes fiber-optic as well, but once again I'm broke LOL! Anyway, I contacted Wadia to ask if it could handle 24 bit ALAC and they told me every time they tried the iPod crashed! Don't know if this is a shortcoming of the iPod OS or the Wadia, but Steve Jobs has stated that he wants iTunes to move toward selling 24 bit DRM free files so here's hoping! Dan
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Touzimsky <tto@klf.de (mailto:tto@klf.de)> wrote:
Unlike a converted mp3, a lossless file is only reduced in size but with all the audio information intact. A lossless FLAC/ALAC file can be reconverted to WAV without degrading sound quality.
I once converted an ALAC file back to WAV to see if it was truly lossless - the original and the reconverted WAV phased out each other perfectly, so there you go. :)
..::// Thomas Touzimsky
"While there are limits to success, your capacity for failure is infinite." - Aaron Williams
Am 03.09.2011 um 22:13 schrieb Martijn van Rheenen:
I may be a bit naive here, but isn't the term 'lossless' used to indicate that no bytes or bits are lost at all? Then no matter what lossless format you use, they should all be identical.
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com (mailto:KLF@mailman.xmission.com) http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com (http://studio-nibble.com)
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com (mailto:KLF@mailman.xmission.com) http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com (http://studio-nibble.com)
Xav, Please tell me more about this device! What I like about the Wadia is that it extracts the digital data and sends it to the much better D/A convertors on my Pioneer Elite receiver. Apparently, newer Pioneer Elites do this natively, but I won't be able to afford a new one for some time LOL! The only thing I don't like about the Wadia is that it only has a digital coax and not a fiber-optic (the new model does). I used to own an early 90s Parasound D/A convertor and played around with it quite a bit. When sending digital via coax the sound was very analog (which many people like); when sending it via fiber-optic the sound was much more digital (more separation between the different parts of the music making every part sound more separate and distinct). In fact, when I play a CD through my Oppo DVD player which I have connected via fiber-optic I hear the same digital thing. Theoretically, there shouldn't be any difference between the sound of a digital coax and a digital fiber-optic, but truth be told there is and the difference is HUGE. Whilst I don't think one is better than the other, those who like a more analog sound should opt for a coax connection, those who are of the digital generation (such as myself) and prefer a more separated sound should opt for the fiber-optic. Again, happy with my Wadia but if there's something better that will hand-off the pure digital signal via fiber-optic to my Pioneer D/A convertor I'm all for it! BTW I tried an A/B thing with my wife using digital coax and fiber-optic to determine the best sound. As many out there may know, women have far superior hearing to men (Not speculation, fact). The wife preferred the fiber-optic sound as she said she could "hear more" of the music. Just Emily's two cents. Dan On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Xavier <alunare@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Dan,
used to own the Wadia (which i sold) and have a Pure music Dock now which does the exact same thing (extract pure digital out from a iOS machine).
Limitation is software: iOS does NOT support anything higher than 16bit/48khz files at the moment. So in theory it could change in future updates (though no hope for iOS 5, still same limitations).
Cheers, Xav
Le dimanche 4 septembre 2011 à 17:42, Dan Hutchins a écrit :
Funny that you mention this, the interwebs state that a FLAC file usually compresses into a slightly smaller file than ALAC, but I'm playing around this morning and am starting to discover that ALAC actually produces slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) smaller file size than FLAC. Not dissing FLAC as it's a great format, but audiophiles who know WAY more about this stuff than I have really examined this and and have found both formats are sonically equal and truly lossless. Both formats are also able to handle 24 bit files and beyond. Whilst iTunes is able to play 24 bit ALAC files, I own this cool piece of kit by a company called Wadia that is an iPod dock that extracts the true digital stream from an iPod and passes it off to a receiver/DA convertor via a digital connection. I own the first model that only utilizes a coax digital cable, would love the latest model that has a ton more features and utilizes fiber-optic as well, but once again I'm broke LOL! Anyway, I contacted Wadia to ask if it could handle 24 bit ALAC and they told me every time they tried the iPod crashed! Don't know if this is a shortcoming of the iPod OS or the Wadia, but Steve Jobs has stated that he wants iTunes to move toward selling 24 bit DRM free files so here's hoping! Dan
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Touzimsky <tto@klf.de> wrote:
Unlike a converted mp3, a lossless file is only reduced in size but with all the audio information intact. A lossless FLAC/ALAC file can be reconverted to WAV without degrading sound quality.
I once converted an ALAC file back to WAV to see if it was truly lossless - the original and the reconverted WAV phased out each other perfectly, so there you go. :)
..::// Thomas Touzimsky
"While there are limits to success, your capacity for failure is infinite." - Aaron Williams
Am 03.09.2011 um 22:13 schrieb Martijn van Rheenen:
I may be a bit naive here, but isn't the term 'lossless' used to indicate that no bytes or bits are lost at all? Then no matter what lossless format you use, they should all be identical.
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
Dan, to be honest, in the audiophile world (of which I'm unfortunately part of), fibre optics (or TOSLINK as it is often called) is considered to be very inferior to the digital coax (S/PDIF) connexion. Which is why Wadia left it out of its 170i :) Its funny but the way you describe the difference in sounds: i think a reason why a lot of people consider coax > fibre is exactly because of that more analogue sound which many favor and strive for. The Pure dock i use has both and is way cheaper than the Wadia ($100) Anyway mail me off the list if you want to talk further, I'm sure I've bored too many people already Cheers Cheers, Xav Le dimanche 4 septembre 2011 à 19:28, Dan Hutchins a écrit :
Xav, Please tell me more about this device! What I like about the Wadia is that it extracts the digital data and sends it to the much better D/A convertors on my Pioneer Elite receiver. Apparently, newer Pioneer Elites do this natively, but I won't be able to afford a new one for some time LOL! The only thing I don't like about the Wadia is that it only has a digital coax and not a fiber-optic (the new model does). I used to own an early 90s Parasound D/A convertor and played around with it quite a bit. When sending digital via coax the sound was very analog (which many people like); when sending it via fiber-optic the sound was much more digital (more separation between the different parts of the music making every part sound more separate and distinct). In fact, when I play a CD through my Oppo DVD player which I have connected via fiber-optic I hear the same digital thing. Theoretically, there shouldn't be any difference between the sound of a digital coax and a digital fiber-optic, but truth be told there is and the difference is HUGE. Whilst I don't think one is better than the other, those who like a more analog sound should opt for a coax connection, those who are of the digital generation (such as myself) and prefer a more separated sound should opt for the fiber-optic. Again, happy with my Wadia but if there's something better that will hand-off the pure digital signal via fiber-optic to my Pioneer D/A convertor I'm all for it! BTW I tried an A/B thing with my wife using digital coax and fiber-optic to determine the best sound. As many out there may know, women have far superior hearing to men (Not speculation, fact). The wife preferred the fiber-optic sound as she said she could "hear more" of the music. Just Emily's two cents. Dan
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Xavier <alunare@gmail.com (mailto:alunare@gmail.com)> wrote:
Hey Dan,
used to own the Wadia (which i sold) and have a Pure music Dock now which does the exact same thing (extract pure digital out from a iOS machine).
Limitation is software: iOS does NOT support anything higher than 16bit/48khz files at the moment. So in theory it could change in future updates (though no hope for iOS 5, still same limitations).
Cheers, Xav
Le dimanche 4 septembre 2011 à 17:42, Dan Hutchins a écrit :
Funny that you mention this, the interwebs state that a FLAC file usually compresses into a slightly smaller file than ALAC, but I'm playing around this morning and am starting to discover that ALAC actually produces slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) smaller file size than FLAC. Not dissing FLAC as it's a great format, but audiophiles who know WAY more about this stuff than I have really examined this and and have found both formats are sonically equal and truly lossless. Both formats are also able to handle 24 bit files and beyond. Whilst iTunes is able to play 24 bit ALAC files, I own this cool piece of kit by a company called Wadia that is an iPod dock that extracts the true digital stream from an iPod and passes it off to a receiver/DA convertor via a digital connection. I own the first model that only utilizes a coax digital cable, would love the latest model that has a ton more features and utilizes fiber-optic as well, but once again I'm broke LOL! Anyway, I contacted Wadia to ask if it could handle 24 bit ALAC and they told me every time they tried the iPod crashed! Don't know if this is a shortcoming of the iPod OS or the Wadia, but Steve Jobs has stated that he wants iTunes to move toward selling 24 bit DRM free files so here's hoping! Dan
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Thomas Touzimsky <tto@klf.de (mailto:tto@klf.de)> wrote:
Unlike a converted mp3, a lossless file is only reduced in size but with all the audio information intact. A lossless FLAC/ALAC file can be reconverted to WAV without degrading sound quality.
I once converted an ALAC file back to WAV to see if it was truly lossless - the original and the reconverted WAV phased out each other perfectly, so there you go. :)
..::// Thomas Touzimsky
"While there are limits to success, your capacity for failure is infinite." - Aaron Williams
Am 03.09.2011 um 22:13 schrieb Martijn van Rheenen:
I may be a bit naive here, but isn't the term 'lossless' used to indicate that no bytes or bits are lost at all? Then no matter what lossless format you use, they should all be identical.
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com (mailto:KLF@mailman.xmission.com) http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com (http://studio-nibble.com)
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com (mailto:KLF@mailman.xmission.com) http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com (http://studio-nibble.com)
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com (mailto:KLF@mailman.xmission.com) http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com (http://studio-nibble.com)
_______________________________________________ KLF mailing list KLF@mailman.xmission.com (mailto:KLF@mailman.xmission.com) http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf Report list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com (http://studio-nibble.com)
participants (6)
-
Dan Hutchins -
Dan T. Hutchins
-
Mark Howk -
Martijn van Rheenen -
Thomas Touzimsky -
Xavier