title
Products            Buy            Support Forum            Professional            About            Codec Central
 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 19 of 19

Thread: FLAC or ALAC or both?

  1. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    19

    Re: FLAC or ALAC or both?

    So, Garym, let me try to summarise all your advices, so that I should be ready to go:

    1) As I am living in an Apple environment, I will use the Apple Lossless format ALAC as my main audio format, that works well with Roon, Sonos, and iTunes to combine it also with iTunes Match.
    2) I will keep a backup of this on a separate USB drive and keep it somewhere else (not same house).
    3) To be ready for the future or a situation, where ALAC cannot be used, I could make a FLAC copy of the full ALAC library by using the dbpa batch converter, when i am done with my full ripping project, and in this case the FLAC Files will also have this important checksum by default.

    Does this make sense? THANKS.

  2. #17
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,882

    Re: FLAC or ALAC or both?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apple-Fan View Post
    So, Garym, let me try to summarise all your advices, so that I should be ready to go:

    1) As I am living in an Apple environment, I will use the Apple Lossless format ALAC as my main audio format, that works well with Roon, Sonos, and iTunes to combine it also with iTunes Match.
    2) I will keep a backup of this on a separate USB drive and keep it somewhere else (not same house).
    3) To be ready for the future or a situation, where ALAC cannot be used, I could make a FLAC copy of the full ALAC library by using the dbpa batch converter, when i am done with my full ripping project, and in this case the FLAC Files will also have this important checksum by default.

    Does this make sense? THANKS.

    Yes, Correct. One aside, you mention a "future where ALAC cannot be used". This is unlikely. Both FLAC and ALAC are codecs that will likely have encoders and decoders available for many, many years. And if they do fall out of favor, there will be plenty of time (decades) to convert them to the new flavor. And since they are LOSSLESS, the conversion to the new flavor in the future will be LOSSLESS too. For example, the first LOSSLESS, but size compressed codec I was familiar with was a SHN file. Concert tapers/traders used that for many years. You can still run across SHN files, but they are easily converted to FLAC or any other format, with available converters.

    The benefit I mention of the FLAC and embedded checksum comes up in situations like this (and I know of these exact situations). Say you have a harddrive failure. And it turns out that your backups are not up to date or also have a problem, etc. So now you work hard to get all those files moved from the failing/failed harddrive (sometimes at a great $$$ expense) and now you have the files on a new drive. But when playing them, you start noticing that every so often a file is corrupt and won't play. So you'd like to know once and for all which of the files are corrupt. With WAV or ALAC or AIFF you have no way of easily doing this. But with FLAC, you point a program at the top of your music directory, selecting ALL your files in a single batch, and run a TEST. Let it run, and when done, it will tell you which files, if any, are corrupt. Most people never need this. But if needed, it becomes very important.

  3. #18

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    19

    Re: FLAC or ALAC or both?

    Quote Originally Posted by garym View Post
    Yes, Correct. One aside, you mention a "future where ALAC cannot be used". This is unlikely. Both FLAC and ALAC are codecs that will likely have encoders and decoders available for many, many years. And if they do fall out of favor, there will be plenty of time (decades) to convert them to the new flavor. And since they are LOSSLESS, the conversion to the new flavor in the future will be LOSSLESS too. For example, the first LOSSLESS, but size compressed codec I was familiar with was a SHN file. Concert tapers/traders used that for many years. You can still run across SHN files, but they are easily converted to FLAC or any other format, with available converters.

    The benefit I mention of the FLAC and embedded checksum comes up in situations like this (and I know of these exact situations). Say you have a harddrive failure. And it turns out that your backups are not up to date or also have a problem, etc. So now you work hard to get all those files moved from the failing/failed harddrive (sometimes at a great $$$ expense) and now you have the files on a new drive. But when playing them, you start noticing that every so often a file is corrupt and won't play. So you'd like to know once and for all which of the files are corrupt. With WAV or ALAC or AIFF you have no way of easily doing this. But with FLAC, you point a program at the top of your music directory, selecting ALL your files in a single batch, and run a TEST. Let it run, and when done, it will tell you which files, if any, are corrupt. Most people never need this. But if needed, it becomes very important.
    Thank you so much, your input was/is much appreciated. And know I also got what is all about this famous checksum, that hopefully I will never need:-) Once again, thank you!

  4. #19
    dBpoweramp Guru
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,882

    Re: FLAC or ALAC or both?

    You're welcome.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •