Ripping more important than FLAC or ALAC file type?
by Ejwyz - 7/4/11 11:45 AM
Couple of things I'm trying to get my head around. I've
been researching the ALAC vs FLAC and have come up with, they are
pretty much the same code. Slightly larger files vs slightly smaller.
But ripping the music . . . .
<b>Ripper and encoder is two different things.
The word "lossless" refer to keeping the audio data inputted to the
encoder 100% intact (no loss). If the inputted audio data is not 100%
intact compared to the source audio CD then that is the fault of the
ripper and not the encoder. That goes regardless if we talk about FLAC,
ALAC, or ...</b>
So while I was on Wikipedia I came across this under Software support. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec
I was wondering if I have the following correct?
Encoding = the file format ALAC FLAC? or the companies version of how to create the ALAC or FLAC file.
Decoding = playback device / software
Ripping = extracting the data from the CD so the encoding software can make accurate ALAC or FLAC or whatever files.
What I think I am asking is, I don't think it's so much the file format between ALAC and FLAC as it is the ripping software.
I am wary of using i Tunes because of my experience with the Beach Boys Album. Pet Sounds Remastered. ( I received a
copy for Xmass and when I ripped and played back in iTunes it sounded like crap compared to when I played direct from CD.)
Although it would be easier to do everything through iTunes.
Do you think a 32 bit system and a 64 bit system would make the difference? Or is that just speed?
When ripping music do you think it would matter, say if my CD / DVD burner was an older model and not the software so much?
you think I should stop trying to have someone give me the answer I was
looking for or bite the bullet and test between all the options myself?