ALAC vs.FLAC

[vrpatilisl]

hi
Which is better to compress audio collection to harddrive. Whch got more compression.
Thanxs

[hello_hello]

I think compression-wise they're fairly similar. The choice would probably come down to software/player compatibility.
Lossless comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs)
Performance comparison of lossless audio compressors (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm)

Personally, I use Flac.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Do not ask "what's best" because this question cannot be answered objectively.
Each and everyone has their own view about what's best in a certain area. The best is what works best for you!

Personally I am with FLAC too. Because it has been "free" for a long time. And it seems to have been established as the de-facto standard for HQ audio releases.
I don't know how good hardware support for ALAC is, especially outside the "Apple" universe. Hardware support for FLAC definitely is in many devices now...

[Ghitulescu]

Almost all lossless codecs are more or less similar, and, unless one has a billion of songs on the HDD, the advantage of a slightly better compression plays no role (they are more or less 50%, more can be achieved only by employing lossy codecs).
What codec is the best depends on one's personal priorities, as I am not an Apple fan, ALAC is useless (it went public and free only recently, despite being used since 2004, iTunes 4.5) and allows DRM (at the container level). On the other hand, FLAC is now well supported by a large spectrum of hardware and is by design DRM-free.

[Kurtnoise]

you can put flac streams into mkv within several protections...so, DRM should not be noted there.

[hello_hello]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless
"All current iPods and iPhones can play Apple Lossless–encoded files. It does not use any digital rights management (DRM) scheme, but by the nature of the container, it is thought that DRM could be applied to ALAC much the same way it can with other files in QuickTime containers."

"Allows DRM" and "it's thought that DRM could be applied" aren't quite the same thing anyway.

[Ghitulescu]

Semantics, semantics.... :)
I explained why Apple Lossless is not good for me, but our OP has his own CDs (I assume) and therefore DRM is no issue. It would have been an issue only when he used Apple Store etc., which is an inherent step once one has an iDevice (except for an iron :)), Apple philosophy.
According to apple site, ALA (or Apple lossless) must be stored in MPEG-4 containers, unlike FLAC that is usually a standalone file and can be stored in any container that accept FLAC, but it is not required to.
If people put FLAC into MKV is not because they can't use the FLAC files as they are, but because this FLAC file stores the audio for a movie, a complementary track if you want. FLAC was invented for music and CDs, and its use was extended to hold lossless audio tracks from DVD-audios, SACDs and more recently, blurays. It was not designed to be stored into a container, but it may.

[smok3]

FLAC seems to be slightly faster (both at decoding/encoding), so if it is a portable device in question, that could lead to better battery life.

If your main playback device is pc or mac or linux, then i would pick FLAC (speed + slight compression win).

[Przemek_Sperling]

I think this question was already answered http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=87407

[smok3]

I think this question was already answered http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=87407

nope, that was a question from an idevice owner and it was not really answered well imho.

[mindbomb]

flac for android.

alac for mac os or ios.

[vrpatilisl]

personaly i am in favour of FLAC,still asked cause i want to see what expert says.

[smok3]

alac for mac os

depends, in my case itunes is in recycle bin,
http://www.finiteloops.com/weblog/?p=3

[pandy]

personaly i am in favour of FLAC,still asked cause i want to see what expert says.

You know the answer already - both are lossless codec's so quality is exactly the same - compression ratio is similar - it is only up to personal preferences which one is "better" - which one is better? 2+2 or 1+3 or maybe 1+1+1+1 - at the end there is exactly same result - 4.