Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this is a basic post - and I'm sure this question has been answered before in the Linn Forum, but when I searched for it the Forum has vanished!

pretty disappointed in this, and think it's very shortsighted of Linn... however, I found this forum. When I searched I couldn't find anything on this topic. 

So, I have a NAS near my Linn Magik DSM but a lot of music on an external HD linked to my iTunes library in my upstairs office - which means I have lots of duplicate files as MP3 m4a in my iTunes and (mostly) FLAC on my NAS. Id like to sort this out by linking my iTunes to the files on my NAS but apple doesn't recognise FLAC. So, when ripping CD's I was wondering if I shoould use Apple lossless in future or not - that way the files will play in both systems. 

Does anyone have any experience of this and if so whats the best setting for CD conversion? 

best regards,

Joe 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So, are we running a book on who will be the first to go, jonome or May?

You shouldn't start sentences with "and".

No, it's not a downgrade. Changing from FLAC to WAV is not an upgrade. They're the same in information content, though obviously not in file size.

Posted Images

57 minutes ago, joelafferty said:

Sorry if this is a basic post - and I'm sure this question has been answered before in the Linn Forum, but when I searched for it the Forum has vanished!

pretty disappointed in this, and think it's very shortsighted of Linn... however, I found this forum. When I searched I couldn't find anything on this topic. 

So, I have a NAS near my Linn Magik DSM but a lot of music on an external HD linked to my iTunes library in my upstairs office - which means I have lots of duplicate files as MP3 m4a in my iTunes and (mostly) FLAC on my NAS. Id like to sort this out by linking my iTunes to the files on my NAS but apple doesn't recognise FLAC. So, when ripping CD's I was wondering if I shoould use Apple lossless in future or not - that way the files will play in both systems. 

Does anyone have any experience of this and if so whats the best setting for CD conversion? 

best regards,

Joe 

I use DBPoweramp for ripping CDs. You have a choice of file formats to rip to, including Apple Lossless. There are no additional encoder settings in DBP as there are if you rip to FLAC.

For what it's worth I think ALAC (Apple Lossless) and WAV both sound better than FLAC. Other people may disagree. Try it and see, then you can make up your own mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, it's horses for courses. There were interminable discussions on the old Linn forum as to which format was the best sounding; in reality (and despite what ACs says), I doubt that you would notice the difference between any of the lossless formats. So it comes down to practicalities and user convenience.

FLAC has the great advantage that it is an open, and not a proprietary, standard. It also uses the Vorbis format for metadata, which is the least potentially problematic from the user perspective. But most of the metadata issues that used to plague people ripping CDs have now disappeared. (The one remaining big metadata problem - the quality of the online libraries used to populate CD rips in programs such as dBpoweramp - is of course common to all file formats.) So it comes down to what you are trying to achieve and the best means of meeting that objective.

How wedded are you to iTunes? (In the interests of full disclosure, I should explain that I regard it as an abomination, and Windows Media Player as hardly better). As you seek to rationalise your collection, are you prepared to (or do you already) use a music server such as MinimServer, Asset UPnP or Linn's own Kazoo Server? The kind(s) of music you listen to is/are also relevant. To users with wholly or mainly classical collections I would recommend MinimServer, but Asset (which comes from the same stable as dBpoweramp) has features that some users find particularly valuable. Kazoo Server will appeal to those who want a ready configured 'fire and forget' server solution, and it also can access iTunes libraries.

Then there is the question of where you run the server. The NAS is the ideal location, but it has to be a model which is compatible with the software you want to run. AFAIK, QNAP is the only brand of NAS that can run all three of the applications I mentioned. Of the three, MinimServer is the one available for the widest range of platforms, but by no means every NAS can run third party applications.

I am conscious that I am making things more complicated than you intended. But, as you are planning to reorganise your digital music collection, I'd suggest that you need to take (or explicitly reconfirm existing) decisions on where the music is stored, in what file structure and which music server software is used to access it. With these decisions made, you can then create a new music folder in the desired storage location and progressively populate it in a systematic manner from the existing music collection (as well as keeping a number of backups, of course!). Coming back to your original question, in a scheme of this kind if you continue to use iTunes, you will need to use ALAC, but if you migrate to a 'proper' music server run on the NAS, I would recommend moving over to FLAC, as it is the most widely used lossless format, and wide use makes for good future proofing.

David

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As above, plenty of good info there. You could also convert the files to AIFF (Audio Interchange File Format) as this was Apples's format for all things digital on Apple Macs a while ago. Surely it should be recognised on both systems drives?

I did a conversion a few years ago at The Wam Show on the fly with my laptop and software and played them both back to back via my DS Akurate as someone asked if they could hear the difference as he could on his Naim player, we converted a Flac file to WAV and it sounded not as good to our ears. YMMV.

Flac has the better metadata properties as already stated, you can easily experiment across all formats with Foobar as it's easy to convert and quick too.

Happy experimenting. A thumbs up for QNAP Nas drives, been very happy with my two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jonome said:

My thoughts are, flac and alac are far better than mp3, but flac and alac are not completely lossless. They take out all the notes that you cant hear and all the bits that have no sound. Now you are probably thinking you don't need these anyway, but when you are listening on a medium to high end system, these missing pieces matter. There are gaps in music. Moments like a singer taking a breath or a gap in a drum solo, which might only last half a second, but they make a difference. I'm fussy, i have a klimax ds2 renew in a all Linn system. Far as i'm concerned, the only way to listen to digital music is to rip a proper cd using DBpoweramp into WAV ( sacrificing some meta data ) save it to any hard drive for storage, but the most important bit is to only play it from a SSD. Either by a lap top with ssd or what i do is buy a WD mycloud then plug my Samsung T3 SSD into it which i stream music and blu ray films from. If you think this makes any sense and want any info on music and films played to there highest quality as well as what cables to use for improvements, e.g HDMI, Ethernet, electricity, rca and speaker cables let me know.

Both FLAC and ALAC are completely lossless. You can convert a WAV file to FLAC or ALAC, and then back to WAV again. There will be no differences between the PCM data in the original WAV file and the PCM data in the WAV that was recovered from the ALAC or FLAC versions.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jonome said:

My thoughts are, flac and alac are far better than mp3, but flac and alac are not completely lossless. They take out all the notes that you cant hear and all the bits that have no sound. Now you are probably thinking you don't need these anyway, but when you are listening on a medium to high end system, these missing pieces matter. There are gaps in music. Moments like a singer taking a breath or a gap in a drum solo, which might only last half a second, but they make a difference. I'm fussy, i have a klimax ds2 renew in a all Linn system. Far as i'm concerned, the only way to listen to digital music is to rip a proper cd using DBpoweramp into WAV ( sacrificing some meta data ) save it to any hard drive for storage, but the most important bit is to only play it from a SSD. Either by a lap top with ssd or what i do is buy a WD mycloud then plug my Samsung T3 SSD into it which i stream music and blu ray films from. If you think this makes any sense and want any info on music and films played to there highest quality as well as what cables to use for improvements, e.g HDMI, Ethernet, electricity, rca and speaker cables let me know.

Welcome to the Forum.

This is worth a read: http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/KB/WAV-FLAC.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jonome said:

They are lossless i agree. but if you read what i said, and look at the file size of a cd ripped in flac or wav, wav is a bigger file. They snip the edges in alac and flac so they can get all the meta data in it, for the common people, but if you are a purist, then wav for music and Anydvd for blu rays. Proper lossless.

Sorry, but file size as such is irrelevant; the fact that you mention it shows that you are missing rdale's point. FLAC and ALAC are indeed compressed, so the file size is different from that of a WAV file. But when they are uncompressed for playback, the music (i.e. the PCM) data is completely indistinguishable, as bits and bytes, from what was compressed in the first place; that is what is meant by "lossless". The presence or absence of metadata, which goes in a separately constructed part of the file, is an entirely different issue.

If (and it is an arguable if) there is any audible difference between a WAV format file and a FLAC file constructed from the same original PCM data, this is an issue in the renderer and not in the file format as such. As it happens, I play my FLAC files transcoded to WAV; I think that they sound just a little better that way. But this is not an indication that one format contains different data from, or inherently sounds better than, the other; it's just that the renderer, in the present state of its technology, can apparently deal a little better with one format than the other. Sooner or later, as technology improves, any difference of that kind will disappear.

David

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jonome said:

They are lossless i agree. but if you read what i said, and look at the file size of a cd ripped in flac or wav, wav is a bigger file. They snip the edges in alac and flac so they can get all the mata data in it, for the common people, but if you are a purist, then wav for music and Anydvd for blu rays. Proper lossless.

The reduction in file size is not due to edges or any music content "being snipped" as you put it. FLAC/ALAC lossless is just a lot more efficiently packed & WAV more wasteful of space. You seem to be operating under some misconceptions. If you want to fo forego having better metadata, that is up to you. BTW, that is yet another misconception, as the space used by metadata is completely trivial in terms of the overall file size, when compared to the space taken by the music content.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonome said:

 They snip the edges in alac and flac so they can get all the mata data in it

Hi,

This is not true and easily proven. Just calculate the checksum of a WAV file, pack it and unpack it to a new WAV file with available FLAC tools, and calculate the checksum for the new WAV file. It will match the original's WAV file checksum. FLAC is just a container which allows to store a compressed version of the WAV file and has additional fields to store metadata, which WAV does not have.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonome said:

Yes i read that link, thank you. but its basically what i said. I'm not going to say you can tell the difference when you sit down and listen, but i only want the best i can get, and thats WAV.

We used to have a chap on here called Chumpy, a great advocate of WAV. He didn’t seem to understand the basics of digital file formats either. rdale, above has it right; there really is no scope for opinion on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The audio data in uncompressed flac is, bit for bit the same as WAV.

Compressed flac is like a Hoberman Sphere when it's contracted. Expand it and you have the WAV again. There is no loss and the end result is the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...