Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC) Now Open Source

The Best Mac Accurate Ripping Software: Rip

The name choice is somewhat stupid: if you Google "Accurate Rip Mac" the results are all about ripping but not the "Rip" software. But, after a few years using a PC just for running EAC, I am surprised how few people knows native Mac software do exist using Accurate Rip check sum database and extensive block level re-reading control, it is just called "Rip", and it is actually even better than EAC:

http://sbooth.org/Rip/

Download it free and try it out. You will not be disappointed.
 
ABernardoJr said:
I look forward to the day that hi def sound is as important to the world as hi def picture. Well that might never happen, but I mean when sound gets somewhat close in importance. Unfortunately we have companies like Bose and monster that pass off overpriced, underwhelming products as top of the line, which fools consumers into thinking they've got great sound. Now I know monster has better products with its turbines (pro, copper, gold, etc) but hardly anyone knows of those like they know of beats by dre.

At least this is a step forward!
Click to expand...
Same pretty much goes for video. How often do I see comments about great Sony TVs? Or Visio. And Monster plays here, too. :rolleyes:
 
zedsdead said:
Is this a step toward offering Apple Lossless on iTunes? Hopefully.
Click to expand...

Pointless since Apple hasn't updated any capacities on their devices for years now.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it but the capacity constraints Apple has put on us audiophiles really sucks.
 
subsonix said:
aif vs wav is nonsense both are uncompressed lpcm formats and variations of the riff file format. The only difference what so ever is:

a.) the header

b.) the byte order

To argue that lossless formats have a sound is like arguing that ZIP files make data disappear.
Click to expand...

AIFF supports tags, and wave doesn't. other then that, their the exact same.

----------
iEvolution said:
Pointless since Apple hasn't updated any capacities on their devices for years now.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it but the capacity constraints Apple has put on us audiophiles really sucks.
Click to expand...

Because a 64GB iPhone didn't come out less than a month ago.
 
iEvolution said:
Pointless since Apple hasn't updated any capacities on their devices for years now.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it but the capacity constraints Apple has put on us audiophiles really sucks.
Click to expand...

Except that only applies to iPods, iPads, and iPhones. Capacity on laptop and desktop hard drives is virtually limitless. I ripped my CD collection to ALAC years ago and hooked up a Mac Mini to my stereo via the optical in. It's the way I listen to music at home.

I wish I could just buy songs off iTunes but I'm not paying a dime for lossy audio so I still buy CDs, rip them, and then store the CDs in a closet. Waste of time, waste of plastic. If iTunes ever offered ALAC or any other lossless audio it would be the end of my CD buying days.

It's easy to convert ALAC to AAC or MP3 if I need a version for my iPhone.
 
As others have said, I have a library of ALAC for flexibility, and the fact that if I'm going to buy music, I should do it right the first time and get the best quality version.

Also, as others have said, a lot of times, it's not the higher quality bitrate of DVD-A or SACDs that makes them sound better. It's the mastering.

For example, I have Fleetwood Mac's DVD-A of Rumours, as well as their 2-disc greatest hits, which was meticulously mastered. With both format's stereo mixes, I honestly cannot tell the difference, other than some mixing/mastering decisions (make some drums louder here, etc.).

Of course, the bigger gains are when an audio track has more than two channels.
 
I always rip my cds into an flac with the riplog+cuesheet+album art built in a single flac file. Then I use xld (it does recognize the built in cue sheet) to make a lossless version for my main itunes library and and vbr (max bitrate) aac for the 'portable' itunes library.
I only use flac because I want my cds in one file and I use linux and windows too.
Maybe now more programs start to support alac and I will convert all my lossless albums to alac:D
 
bigwig said:
ALAC is typically 16-bit/44KHz (though I believe it supports more), while most DTS-HD tracks on Blu-Ray are 16/48. DTS-HD supports up to 24/192 in stereo and 24/96 in multitrack, so it would make a great replacement for DVD-A and SACD, both of which are functionally dead formats, though I have yet to see any albums released on Blu-Ray.
Click to expand...

Pink Floyd is releasing their immersion series of remasters on BD 24/192 stereo. I have Dark Side Of The Moon. Next to be released in November is Wish You Were Here. I also have classical on 24/384, but I have down sampled that to 24/192 as my DAC (ARC DAC8) only goes up to that. ALAC does 24/192 just fine... If you search it's all out there, but I really think 24/96 is a very very good standard :D

Let's have the iTunes HD store o we can stop wasting the earths resources buying physical discs... Unless they are 12" and made from vinyl ofc!

C
 
benpatient said:
in this regard, i completely disagree. you only have to visit one of the many torrent websites out there and search for FLAC to see how popular the format is.

As many people are downloading the new Coldplay album in FLAC format right now as there are people looking at this forum.

As for power usage, I had one of the few native FLAC-playing mp3 players a few years ago (rio karma), and we got our best battery life when listening to lossless FLAC files. Significantly better than MP3.
Click to expand...

If your Rio Karma got better battery life playing FLAC than MP3, it's because their engineers did a such a crappy job with MP3 playback, not because FLAC uses less power. Probably because they decided not to use a hardware MP3 decoder.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
If iTunes ever offered ALAC or any other lossless audio it would be the end of my CD buying days.
Click to expand...
Sounds great, so long as they don't do something stupid like make the ALAC tracks from upconverted MP3, or offer high-res tracks from upconverted 16/44. That's the sort of thing record companies might come up with. Even if they were Red Book tracks, I'm not sure there's much point. If you're going to offer downloadable lossless tracks I'd prefer 24/96 rather than 16/44.

----------
Catch said:
Pink Floyd is releasing their immersion series of remasters on BD 24/192 stereo. I have Dark Side Of The Moon. Next to be released in November is Wish You Were Here.
Click to expand...
Looks sweet, but darn they're expensive. Are these real 24/192 (downconverted from an even higher resolution source, like 8-bit DSD)? And how do they sound? Modern remasters (and indeed most music produced in the last 10 years) sound awful because they're dynamically compressed to death.
 
bigwig said:
Looks sweet, but darn they're expensive. Are these real 24/192 (downconverted from an even higher resolution source, like 8-bit DSD)? And how do they sound? Modern remasters (and indeed most music produced in the last 10 years) sound awful because they're dynamically compressed to death.
Click to expand...

It sounds amazing to me. My understanding is that they went back to the analogue masters to produce this. I guess only the live performance would sound better :) a bit hard to squeeze that into my listening room at will though! ;)

Just really disappointed they are not doing the same to The Wall :( for now I am listening to that on a 24/192 vinyl rip which sounds amazing as well...

Record companies sure don't make this easy for us! Which is why this ALAC news gives some renewed hope they are starting to think about higher res downloads.

C
 
Catch said:
Just really disappointed they are not doing the same to The Wall
Click to expand...
Either the masters are missing or the record company got stupid. I'm sure as heck not buying The Wall Immersion Edition at that inflated price unless there's a BD in it, and a whole lot of people at Amazon have said the same thing. I'll content myself with my MFSL The Wall until then.
 
JAT said:
If you are of the firm scientific belief that ABX is the only way humans hear, then "transparency" is also just a word that means nothing. You should probably pick a side.
Click to expand...


Two links that explain why a double blind tests (ABX) must be done otherwise your claims are meaningless

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Just do a proper ABX test and find out for yourself. People like to make many claims they hear this and that ect... with no real tests to back it up.

Placebo plays a huge part on what we think we can hear.

Do a real abx test and you'll be surprised that going lossless really is not worth it. 16 vs 24bit isn't worth it either.
 
umbilical said:
by the way, I like rip my cds to FULL uncompress .wav in 1 single file, with XLD

so i get 3 files:

album.wav
album.log
album.cue

i feel that I have a full 1:1 copy

but the bad is that iTunes dont read the .cue so is not possible see the tracks, i shame... I can rip in tracks but like I say, is like a make a full image of DVD in .iso in the .iso you cant see the chapters or scenes of the DVD right? so is the same point for music.

i want itunes read .cue !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

vlc does but vlc is not than great itunes for music, gui organization etc...
Click to expand...

Why don't you mount the cues in the something like daemon tools and then play the "CD" in iTunes (and rip it to ALAC or whatever if you so desire)
 
Ripping to wav is just pointless, why waste all the extra space. rip to a lossless like (Flac or ALAC) that your software of choice plays. You can aways change them to another lossless at any time with zero quality loss.
 
A big problem with the argument of CD vs vinyl is when the digital versions are remastered. In most cases that I've heard both they have done a poor job of remastering which makes me prefer the original. However, there are many problems with vinyl which I would rather avoid.

I also think it's rare these days for music to be mastered in way that would make me think there's a real benefit to lossless vs 256AAC. Just listen to the latest Coldplay album and tell me that you'd honestly prefer that arena mush in lossless format.

I would also argue that most people who make claims about easily being to tell the difference between a 256ACC and lossless file would fail in a double blind test with music they have not conditioned themselves to.

It might be interesting to hear for which albums people think lossless is relevant. I have no argument with the advantage of having a bit perfect copy to leave your options open.

A short list that comes to mind:
- Peter Gabriel
- Un-remastered analog recordings (from the days when the life wasn't squashed out of the music)
- high quality classical and acoustic recordings

I would certainly suggest that anyone saying a live recording in HD Audio is amazing is being influenced by something other than the nature of the encoding.
 
leping said:
The name choice is somewhat stupid: if you Google "Accurate Rip Mac" the results are all about ripping but not the "Rip" software. But, after a few years using a PC just for running EAC, I am surprised how few people knows native Mac software do exist using Accurate Rip check sum database and extensive block level re-reading control, it is just called "Rip", and it is actually even better than EAC:

http://sbooth.org/Rip/

Download it free and try it out. You will not be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I tried it and found it completely impractical for a library of several boxes of CDs. If I used that instead of iTunes with Error correction checked in the import settings, I'd be still ripping my CDs. The difference is completely negligible but I guess that matters little to people who obsess about their cables not being expensive enough.
 
Good to see. Now if iTunes did FLAC the bickering could end and people could play either, on any device they want, and at what quality they want.

Just let me listen to my music how I want to! The idiots can argue all they want and people will figure out what works for them. End of story.

iTunes plays FLAC - it will never happen though.
 
Glad to see Apple open sourcing something of thier's again. As everyone else is asking though, why? They waited all this time.
 
TigerWoodsIV said:
Honestly, in a blind test can you tell the difference between a LAME 320mp3 and FLAC? I mean even if you could, for anything portable there is going to be outside noise that would drown out the smallest details a 320mp3 would lose. Like in a car, on a bus, on a train, walking outside, not too mention the equipment you'd be using to play on the go. So unless you're just listening at home on high quality equipment, LAME mp3 is "quite good." And regardless of the smallest things you may pick out, is doesn't suck that's for sure. I have very good hearing and can't tell a V0 from a FLAC in almost any circumstance.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree. Except I would like to use a completely lossless codec on my iDevices because I use them interchangeably on an Arcam Solo via Arcam irDock through B&W speakers and also a reasonably competent in-car system. The former needs the best source available (without the hassle of vinyl/CDs because ICBA changing them) and the latter possibly benefits.

In fact, I seriously considering have one of the numerous mail-order services re-rip my entire CD collection to lossless because I can't be bothered to do it myself but want the output.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back