Fluke

Haven't tried yet - interested to give it a go when the stereo comes back and the Mac is back in the kitchen and blah blah. Gimme a week or so.

Is that the Flac in iTunes app?

If so, I've not got round to it yet but will give it a try this weekend.

Charlie Jefferson:

Is that the Flac in iTunes app?If so, I've not got round to it yet but will give it a try this weekend.

Yep, it works but the danger I can see is if they stop developing it and further releases of itunes don't support it you'll have a redundant FLAC collection which will need converting. Not that bad I suppose I'm just very wary suddenly using FLAC in itunes.

In which case use that piece of software to convert it to another lossless format (which I think was called Max, will check).

tbh, the only benefit I can see from using FLAC in iTunes would be your ability to check that the rip is bit perfect using EAC or similar, whereas I'd argue that apple lossless with error correction ought to produce the same result, you just can't prove it.

http://sbooth.org/Max/

Yep, using Max at the mo, just very nice to have the option of FLAC.

And that's what I mean - Fluke gives you the ability to use Flac in iTunes, and if it suddenly became redundant (though I doubt that very much, you know what these open source guys are like), use Max to convert from Flac to Apple Lossless (which I wager will be the default in five years time).

here, http://www.computeraudiophile.com/node/108?page=5 theres someone saying itunes rips better than flac, and that they can hear the diffeence.

controversial, imo. thought some of you may be interested.

It does, but it has always peed me off a little Apple wouldn't support FLAC. That's why I love this app.

Ha! Vindicated! Cheerleaders come out for smooches!

JohnDuncan:

Ha! Vindicated! Cheerleaders come out for smooches!

um...or not. did you notice how much guesswork that person used? and they dont exactly have a wealth of opinions on their side. and no evidence that itunes corrects bad recordings when EAC does not (that would seem highly unlikely on the face of it wouldnt it?


and my last post should read "...rips better than EAC", and not flac. sorry.

Yes it was a bit "they're exactly the same....but they're not". A bit 'green pen' if you ask me.

But hey, I like cheerleaders.

al7478:

and my last post should read "...rips better than EAC", and not flac. sorry.

No worries, I know what you meant.

al7478:

here, http://www.computeraudiophile.com/node/108?page=5 theres someone saying itunes rips better than flac, and that they can hear the diffeence.controversial, imo. thought some of you may be interested.

That guys post is the biggest pile of nonsense I have read this year.

"My conclusion is that EAC indeed grabs the CD as it is - a perfect flawless copy but also copying flaws of the CD like already present Jitter (ever read about jittery pre-manufactured CDs?) while iTunes removes this jitter by buffering or re-synchronizing the data"ÿ

ÿ

Bullsh??

ÿ

pudley:

al7478:

here, http://www.computeraudiophile.com/node/108?page=5 theres someone saying itunes rips better than flac, and that they can hear the diffeence.controversial, imo. thought some of you may be interested.

That guys post is the biggest pile of nonsense I have read this year.

"My conclusion is that EAC indeed grabs the CD as it is - a perfect flawless copy but also copying flaws of the CD like already present Jitter (ever read about jittery pre-manufactured CDs?) while iTunes removes this jitter by buffering or re-synchronizing the data"ÿ

ÿ

Bullsh??

ÿ

i didnt expect this post at all. not a bit of it lol! i tend to lean toward agreeing.

JD - dont we all?!