amey01
Well-known member
Now that I've acquired a Squeezebox I'm becoming quite picky about the sound quality. I've always used Apple Lossless from a carryover from my iPod, but I've heard much discussion about EAC / FLAC and saying that it produces better quality hard drive rips.
Now, Apple Lossless is certainly easier and it is what all of my library is in, but I'm more than open to using EAC / FLAC if it is going to produce better sound quality - BUT - is this the case?
A little experiment shows the following checksums generated:
Original WAV: 112bff2281
ALAC: 0a497bdee8
FLAC: a8ffe9db55
ALAC --> WAV: 112bff2281
FLAC --> WAV: 112bff2281
Now, I've never been one to try to link sound quality to statistics like this (and I personally [at least on initial listen] can't tell any difference between FLAC and ALAC), but I am a little disappointed with the sound of the Squeezbox compared to original source material. If EAC can do a better job then i'm all for it, but at this stage I can't see any evidence that it does in fact rip more accurately. Please help!
Now, Apple Lossless is certainly easier and it is what all of my library is in, but I'm more than open to using EAC / FLAC if it is going to produce better sound quality - BUT - is this the case?
A little experiment shows the following checksums generated:
Original WAV: 112bff2281
ALAC: 0a497bdee8
FLAC: a8ffe9db55
ALAC --> WAV: 112bff2281
FLAC --> WAV: 112bff2281
Now, I've never been one to try to link sound quality to statistics like this (and I personally [at least on initial listen] can't tell any difference between FLAC and ALAC), but I am a little disappointed with the sound of the Squeezbox compared to original source material. If EAC can do a better job then i'm all for it, but at this stage I can't see any evidence that it does in fact rip more accurately. Please help!