I am impressed with 16-bit/44.1kHz ALAC files played through iTunes with the $10 BitPerfect app available from the Apple App Store. If you went with FLAC you would need a third-party addin to play them as iTunes does not support FLAC. ALAC obviously is a native format for Apple products. Technically they are both lossless formats and should be indistiguishable upon playback.

FLAC has always been open source, although Apple has now made the ALAC codec open source as well.

I can't think of any reason not to use ALAC with an Apple. I would use the error correction if ripping CDs with iTunes. It may take a little longer, but it will save some frustration of having to do it again for some CDs.

Hi there bierfeldt,

From a technical perspective there is really nothing to choose between FLAC and ALAC.  Both achieve a similar end by very similar means and there are absolutely no quality pros or cons that I am aware of.  IIRC ALAC has some specific features to support Airplay streaming, but as far as substantive differences go that's about it.

Apple placed ALAC in the public domain under the Apache license a couple years ago (although not before a bunch of folks had spent a lot fo time and effort reverse engineering it), so now presumably all 3rd party devices are using encoders and decoders are based on the Apple source rather than the Hammerton/Brocious code (which still had some bugs in the hi rez code paths when I tuned out a few years ago).

iTunes (vanilla) still doesn't support FLAC and I'm guessing that WMP (still) doesn't support ALAC.  Otherwise I think most all replay environments support both and so it is probably moot.  Converting between the two is also pretty straightforward so this isn't the $64k question it once was. 

Good luck!

Apple losless is proprietory (but not limited) to Apple, ALAC is limited to 16 bits @ 44.1 khz. If the sytem path you currently own will accept the iTunes app and that is all you intend to use it for, you are good-to-go. I have been using it this way for many years, and I've been happy, but new higher resolution formats (FLAC) are here and are much more widly accepted. So I'm keeping an open mind for the future.

FLAC can handle resolutions from 16 bit at 44.1 khz & 96 khz, 20 bits @ 44.1 (HDHC) & 96khz, all the way to 24 bits @ 196 khz, (SACD, DVD audio & Blu-Ray) it is compatible with almost every hi-end format except for iTunes. Shame on Apple.

Almost all the new high resolution download services offer both FLAC and ALAC as an option. FLAC only matters if the source files are orginally higher resolution than the CD "standard" of 16 bit/44.1 khz and you have both the application and the playback system that handle FLAC.

FLAC is DVD audio/SACD/Blu-ray quality, but the soucre files have to have been high resolution to start with. While you can take a standard CD and encode it FLAC, but you won't get any higher resolution than where you started from. i.e. encode it at 24-bit 196khz but it won't sound any better than the 16-bit @ 44.1 khz source file it came from.

Bottom line: I beleive FLAC is the wave of the future, but I am currently Apple based (MAC + iPod). Unless Apple gets on-board with the times, I will eventuall migrate to the higher resolution format. But before I ever consider all the work that entails, the files I work from will have to be a majority of 24-bit/196 khz sourced, or all that effort is wasted. Currently that's not the case.

Stevenm wrote:

Apple lossless is proprietory (but not limited) to Apple, ALAC is limited to 16 bits @ 44.1 khz.

That is not correct. The ALAC codec will correctly handle sample rates up to 192kHz and bit depths up to 24, just like FLAC and if you play those files back with iTunes, you get the full resolution. However, it is a one-way process. If you convert a 24-bit AIFF or WAV file to ALAC, then reconvert back from ALAC to AIF or WAV with anything that uses Apple's CoreAudio engine, you end up with a file that has been truncated to 16 bits.

This has been reported to Apple but it appears it is not a bug but a deliberate decision on their part. I suspect that it relates to Apple once considering releasing 24-bit ALAC files but not wanting end-users to have unrestricted access to the original data.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Don't forget to mention that an ALAC file converted on the fly (as when listening to the file via iTunes) with no loss in sound quality, i.e. the result is the same as playing the WAV or AIFF file, a FLAC file converted on the fly (as when listening to the file via foobar2000) there can often be a loss in sound quality, i.e. the result is NOT the same as playing the WAV or AIFF file.

This happens because if the audiophile press claims that a playing ALAC is not the same as playing a WAV file Apple will sue them for slander, whereas this claim can be made about playing FLAC files since FLAC is an open source codex and no one will sue them.

Funny how the fear of Apple make the audiophile press believe in science.

I haven't seen a difference between the two formats but i will mention one potential limitation with ALAC that caused me to convert all my files to FLAC. FLAC tends to be more supported by third party devises and hardware where ALAC is not always supported. TBH I can think of a devises or playback software that does not support FLAC (besides Apple products) but I know i have run into many over the years that do not support ALAC.

jazzfan wrote:

Don't forget to mention that an ALAC file converted on the fly (as when listening to the file via iTunes) with no loss in sound quality, i.e. the result is the same as playing the WAV or AIFF file, a FLAC file converted on the fly (as when listening to the file via foobar2000) there can often be a loss in sound quality, i.e. the result is NOT the same as playing the WAV or AIFF file.

This happens because if the audiophile press claims that a playing ALAC is not the same as playing a WAV file Apple will sue them for slander, whereas this claim can be made about playing FLAC files since FLAC is an open source codex and no one will sue them.

Funny how the fear of Apple make the audiophile press believe in science.

You are 100% wrong. ALAC and FLAC are both lossless so there is no quality loss in either. They are both lossless formats, and on-the-fly encoding doesn't matter. Lossless means no quality loss. If you convert a WAV file to ALAC and FLAC, then convert both of those back to WAV the decoded WAVs will be identical. What do you think "lossless" means?

If you're part of the Apple ecosystem use ALAC, otherwise FLAC. For my music FLAC results in 5% smaller size compared to ALAC. That's about 1MB difference, so if you have thousands of files it could save a lot of space. Windows 10 and Android both have native FLAC support.

So, converted a bunch of CDs to m4a Apple lossless using iTunes.

I am feeding to an an external dac using the optical out from a MacBook Pro.

Playing the CD from iTunes vs playing the lossless file from iTunes I clearly hear loss in audio quality with the supposed lossless file. Instruments and voice loose dimensionality and sound stage flattens when listening to the lossless file.

Why is this? Is iTunes limiting the lossless file somehow?

It’s puzzling with everyone saying apple lossless is the same as a CD when my mid high end system clearly shows audible differences and lesser audio quality with apple lossless file.

Hi!
I`m told not to, because it sucks. Use USB.
And use BitPerfect on the Mac, together with iTunes
OR
use Audirvana.
Cheers,
Karl

I have been using FLAC for almost 20 years. It seems to be the preferred software for live music.
For playback I use VLC which will play any file format (as far as I know).
Because I enjoy open source software I have never had to ALAC to use.
I am looking for suggestions for a PC sound-card that will allow me to use 7.1 a Denon receiver AVR 2805.
Thanks

Jaded2020 wrote:

I am looking for suggestions for a PC sound-card that will allow me to use 7.1 a Denon receiver AVR 2805.
Thanks

I highly recommend the Asus Xonar Essence STX II. (And if you prefer. a 7.1 daughterboard is also available for the Essence STX II).

Read the Stereophile review on its predecessor:
https://www.stereophile.com/computeraudio/asus_xonar_essence_ststx_soundcards/index.html

I would like to know the answer to this too.
I think I am hearing a difference between songs that I ripped in both FLAC and ALAC through iTunes from the same CD. The FLAC takes up more space because I ripped it using "Lossless Uncompressed" encoding in dBpoweramp.

Were you comparing your ALACs to FLAC files too? Was your FLAC files more Megabytes than ALACs?

You need to install something like bitperfect (free) or Audirvana (free 30day trial) - the reason for the difference is to do with the way OSX interacts and doesn't optimise the audio hardware and processing. (happens on Win10 as well) For iTunes BitPerfect works in conjunction to give the best output. Audirvana takes things further and stops other programs from interacting with the playback chain. Both work well, but Audirvana has the edge, especially if using an external USB dac.