ALAC or FLAC?

[Musichead]

Hi Everyone,

Is there any real difference between these two? Apart from the obvious … one is more suited to Apple products and the is open source…

Anyone have any opinions?

Thanks

 

[Waxx]

Alac is more or less the same, but the coding/decoding require more cpu and drm can be applied (what can't happen with flac). Soundwise there is no difference.

 

[digitalfrost]

FLAC will have better compatibility. Compression wise there is not much difference between most of the lossless codecs and with the way storage sizes (and prices) have gone, I don't think it matters much. I would always choose FLAC as it's become the standard lossless codec and is widely supported.

I used to re-encode and switch formats when new ones came up in the past. Could've saved a lot of CPU cycles and headaches if I just stayed with FLAC in the first place...

 

[nowonas]

Alac is more or less the same, but the coding/decoding require more cpu and drm can be applied (what can't happen with flac). Soundwise there is no difference.

There is some old myths here.

ALAC has been open source under the Apache License version 2.0 on October 27, 2011, nor does it use any DRM scheme.

 

[Musichead]

Alac is more or less the same, but the coding/decoding require more cpu and drm can be applied (what can't happen with flac). Soundwise there is no difference.

Thank you for your feedback

 

[Musichead]

There is some old myths here.

ALAC has been open source under the Apache License version 2.0 on October 27, 2011, nor does it use any DRM scheme.

Thanks for the feedback

 

[Musichead]

FLAC will have better compatibility. Compression wise there is not much difference between most of the lossless codecs and with the way storage sizes (and prices) have gone, I don't think it matters much. I would always choose FLAC as it's become the standard lossless codec and is widely supported.

I used to re-encode and switch formats when new ones came up in the past. Could've saved a lot of CPU cycles and headaches if I just stayed with FLAC in the first place...

Thanks for the feedback

 

[Dunring]

I stick to 44.1khz 16 bit FLAC since I use them in the car stereo and other devices for playback and it's always compatible.

 

[Musichead]

FLAC will have better compatibility. Compression wise there is not much difference between most of the lossless codecs and with the way storage sizes (and prices) have gone, I don't think it matters much. I would always choose FLAC as it's become the standard lossless codec and is widely supported.

I used to re-encode and switch formats when new ones came up in the past. Could've saved a lot of CPU cycles and headaches if I just stayed with FLAC in the first place...

Thanks for your feedback

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Hi Everyone,

Is there any real difference between these two? Apart from the obvious … one is more suited to Apple products and the is open source…

Anyone have any opinions?

Thanks

There are more tools available on every platform (including devices such as streamers) for handling FLAC than ALAC. Otherwise there are no advantages

 

[OldTimer]

FLAC played in my iPad is still much much better than ALAC. I use Flacbox app.

 

[voodooless]

FLAC played in my iPad is still much much better than ALAC. I use Flacbox app.

Better how?

 

[OldTimer]

Better how?

Of course the sound quality. The stereo separation, quitar more recognized, etc.

 

[voodooless]

Of course the sound quality. The stereo separation, quitar more recognized, etc.

That's nonsense. They are both lossless codecs, if the source master was the same, they would sound exactly the same.

 

[Waxx]

There is some old myths here.

ALAC has been open source under the Apache License version 2.0 on October 27, 2011, nor does it use any DRM scheme.

that is true, but ALAC can have DRM added in the file (it's not done anymore in +99.99% of the cases, but the option exist).

 

[Chrispy]

Of course the sound quality. The stereo separation, quitar more recognized, etc.

Sounds more like differences applied in the player rather than the codec.....they're both simply lossless codecs and have no "sound".

 

[OldTimer]

That's nonsense. They are both lossless codecs, if the source master was the same, they would sound exactly the same.

It is like night and day between songs played by Flacbox and Apple Music. FLAC is the king.
I compare the same song 16 bit 44.1khz in both app. Even the 24bit more damage to the Apple Music.
I’m using the free version of Flacbox which doesn’t has EQ. The paid version has the EQ.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

It is like night and day between songs played by Flacbox and Apple Music. FLAC is the king.

You owe it to yourself to take the tests in my signature.

 

[voodooless]

It is like night and day between songs played by Flacbox and Apple Music. FLAC is the king.
I compare the same song 16 bit 44.1khz in both app. Even the 24bit more damage to the Apple Music.

It may just be a different master or Sound Check. The codec is most certainly not to blame.

 

[antcollinet]

It may just be a different master or Sound Check. The codec is most certainly not to blame.

Or quite likely - cognitive bias / placebo.

@OldTimer (sorry mate) also believes he can hear big differences between Redbook and 24/96