0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 6781 times.
and I bet you think aiff is apple lossless too!it really wasn't my intent to get into a heated debate on this forum.the bottom line is if you don't mind spending the time coding and decoding, compressing and uncompressingall to save a few megabytes than use FLAC...it seems to be one of the better lossless codecs.otherwise, use WAV or AIFF. there's really nothing left to say.is that clear enough for you boead? and legibility or the lack thereof relates to handwriting, not coherence of thought.
Quote from: acd483 on 16 Apr 2007, 04:11 pmand I bet you think aiff is apple lossless too!it really wasn't my intent to get into a heated debate on this forum.the bottom line is if you don't mind spending the time coding and decoding, compressing and uncompressingall to save a few megabytes than use FLAC...it seems to be one of the better lossless codecs.otherwise, use WAV or AIFF. there's really nothing left to say.is that clear enough for you boead? and legibility or the lack thereof relates to handwriting, not coherence of thought.You bet wrong. No debate here just trying to correct some seemingly misleading information. I have worked as an audio and video editor a graphic artist and am currently a magazine publisher in the Audio, Video and Musical instrument industries. But I guess your right; I need to go back to school. acd483, is English your first language? Not being facetious, you just don’t seem to understand or comprehend. You say that “…if you don't mind spending the time coding and decoding, compressing and uncompressing all to save a few megabytes than use FLAC…” I don’t think anyone using FLAC spends any time decoding, compressing and uncompressing anything. I think you are confusing people and matters by putting obscuring facts. And if you comprehended the postings in this thread you would have read that I personally don’t use FLAC. Maybe you just need the last word. Go ahead take it, I'm done here. Gooberdude, your analogy makes absolutely NO sense. Smoke less pot and read a little more.
There is then no reasonable argument for using wav instead of flac.
While I like the iTunes interface, the iTunes ripping tool is one of the worst. It'll rip songs that EAC won't touch. I've had iTunes rip CDs into songs that were so bad they sounded as if they were skipping. They were terrible.
Jim,Thank you, I always appreciate it when people respond to the work.As for iTunes...I've never had audio degredation issues. Wonder if it's a PC thing?
Quote from: acd483 on 18 Apr 2007, 03:23 amJim,Thank you, I always appreciate it when people respond to the work.As for iTunes...I've never had audio degredation issues. Wonder if it's a PC thing?LOL, I was thinking the same thing except I wondered if it was a Mac thing? If I set EAC to be ‘faster’ it’ll rip as quickly as iTunes otherwise its very slow. But still, even with all the error detection and correction on, I seldom have EAC not rip something or report any errors. Some of my old CDR’s maybe. I’ve come across some of the first (and really old) disc’s I’ve made that are just no good anymore but that’s not the fault of EAC or iTunes, it’s just a disc gone bad. What do you guys do with your CD’s, use them as coasters? I’m sure EAC is a more competent ripper but the results from iTunes have been excellent for me.But then again, I can’t hear the difference between a WAV and a FLAC so my opinion has little value. I also can’t hear the difference between lossless and max quality mp3 on an iPod. I can believe that the mp3 sounds worse but it’s difficult to tell the difference between shades of shit, it’s all shit from an iPod.
