cepheid wrote: > Also, I'm assuming that since nobody mentioned it yet, that the ALAC > format itself is just fine? I know it's a proprietary format and > requires transcoding, so that makes it less preferable to FLAC overall, > but in terms of sound quality, it should be identical to FLAC, yes?
Any lossless format had better sound identical, or it isn't lossless. > In other words, am I "safe" in continuing to rip the rest of my 400+ CD > library in ALAC? (I know I can always transcode to FLAC later, I would not bet that this is as clear as you write. I would phrase it as you can probably always transcode it to some other format later. But one of the drivers in the argument about closed formats is that there are no guarentees about them at all. The owner of the format can do whatever they want. It gets religious, but as Apple buys more of Disney and has more of a studio/producer view, things could change. > I'm just trying to make sure that there's no sound-related reason to abandon > ALAC, i.e. that ALAC's sound quality is the same as FLAC, and that > transcoding to FLAC later would produce identical sound quality as > ripping to FLAC in the first place.) The sound should be identical. Whether the version of ALAC that runs on Windows SuperVista will allow transcoding is the theological discussion topic. There is also a small chance that in the future, no one will care about FLAC, and so it may not be easy to install on Mac OS-99 or SuperVista 2025. But with the source code available, you can always get the source and compile it, or pay someone to help you compile it. At least until all computer are quantum based. > Sorry for the silly questions, I'm new to all of this... =) We were all new to this not all that long ago. Pat -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
