Fluke for FLAC

[cosmuk]

I've recently been using Fluke to playback my higher resolution files through Amarra's iTune's interface, so that I don't need to recode a file that was already in FLAC to begin with.

This includes 24 bit, 88.2, 176 & 192kHz files.

So far it's fantastic.

 

 

 

http://code.google.com/p/flukeformac/

 

[xsajohn]

Excellent - thanks for the tip. Works great w my Flac collection!

 

[Encore]

Strange, on their website is says that only 16/44.1 plays fine. Are you sure you are getting bit-perfect output with your hires files?

 

[Lars]

Fluke only supports 16/44.1.

 

[cosmuk]

I don't use iTunes to play the FLAC files, I use the playlist mode of Amarra through the iTunes interface.

I posted a comment to Dmitry.

You can access your FLAC files through the iTunes interface or map to the file's location.

It's a huge benefit not to recode.

The quality is superior.

I hope someday, Apple incorporates this natively in iTunes.

 

[Audio_ELF]

@cosmuk...

 

There may be benefits of not recoding FLAC before playback, but recoding to AIFF (or ALAC) will not result in loss of quality.

 

Eloise

 

[cosmuk]

From now on, whatever codec I start with, I will (try to) not re-encode.

Between the AIFF files that I converted from the native FLAC files and the FLAC files themselves, I hear a huge difference.

I recently did a lecture and demonstration demoing the FLAC versus the converted AIFF files, whereas everyone agreed the way to go was "use the native file codec".

My feeling is, if given a choice, never compress.

 

[Audio_ELF]

"I recently did a lecture and demonstration demoing the FLAC versus the converted AIFF files, whereas everyone agreed the way to go was "use the native file codec".

My feeling is, if given a choice, never compress."

 

Sorry but those two sentences don't make sense together.

 

FLAC is a compressed format (all be it Lossless compression).

AIFF is an uncompressed format.

 

Eloise

 

[cosmuk]

They're 2 different sentences.

Use the native codec. (whatever it may be)

And the next sentence:

Don't compress.

Sorry, if you find this confusing.

 

 

[bottlerocket]

First, FLAC is better than AIFF converted from FLAC. Second, don't compress. I guess that points to native AIFF or WAV downloads or rips.

 

[Audio_ELF]

I don't find the whole FLAC vs AIFF confusing ... I find your statements confusing cosmuk.

 

You are claiming a loss of quality when converting from FLAC to AIFF and that just isn't true. Converting from FLAC to AIFF is a perfect process - you can start with a AIFF (uncompressed file), convert to FLAC and back to AIFF and the initial and final file will be identical.

 

You can choose not to convert from FLAC and use Amarra to play the files, but to say you don't convert from FLAC to AIFF because of loss of quality gives wrong information to others on the forum who may be just learning.

 

"Don't [use] compress[ion]" is a fine mantra and one that many people follow. However this is incompatible with your statement that FLAC is best as FLAC is a compressed format.

 

Edit: sorry I put a sentence that reading back was rather patronising.

 

Eloise

 

[cosmuk]

Don't convert anything, if you don't have to, this is the mantra.

 

If you have the option to download a compressed versus an uncompressed format,

download the uncompressed format.

 

Then find 25 other people to tell you, your not crazy.

 

 

 

 

[bottlerocket]

rather than the difference between playing the native format and the converted format. Of course Amarra is converting the FLAC tracks to AIFF on the fly. The playlist function in Amarra really does sound good.

 

[cosmuk]

Try mounting a cd on your desktop then use Amarra's playlist

to add the files.

The results are stunning.

 

[ninekit]

So whats the verdict again? FLAC or AIFF? I still don't get it.

 

[cosmuk]

With Amarra's playlist function,

whatever the source file is, try to use that.

 

 

[bottlerocket]

We are not really discussing FLAC versus AIFF. I think Cozmuk is saying if you play the native format of wherever you got the music it will sound better. So if you downloaded an AIFF, keep it AIFF. If you downloaded FLAC, keep it FLAC. In other words, don't mess with converting if you don't have to. The reality is many of us have to. I am not one to sweat FLAC versus AIFF versus ALAC or WAV. I have mostly AIFF.

 

I am trying the suggestion to play a CD natively (in it's orginal .Wav files I guess), by loading the tracks to the Amarra Mini 2.1's playlist feature via Finder from the CD on the desktop instead of from Itunes. I am not sure if it is better than the same tracks ripped from the same CD to AIFF. I am not saying one way or another. I don't have the ears or the system to tell. I will say the playlist feature in Amarra does sound better than not using this feature.

 

 

 

[ninekit]

Got it, thanks

 

[Audio_ELF]

Don't convert anything, if you don't have to, this is the mantra.

 

If you have the option to download a compressed versus an uncompressed format, download the uncompressed format.

 

Then find 25 other people to tell you, your not crazy.

 

and

 

Try mounting a CD on your desktop then use Amarra's play-list

to add the files. The results are stunning.

 

Okay, now I understand what you are saying. I don't necessarily agree (as I say FLAC to AIFF conversion is perfect) but I do understand.

 

Of course in the first comment, 100 people (non-audiophiles) will tell you you are crazy ... but then this is a crazy world we're listening to. :-) I agree that where possible it's best to not compress.

 

Eloise

 

[Audio_ELF]

Rather than arguing the merits of FLAC vs. AIFF back to the original topic of Fluke.

 

Lars said... "Fluke only supports 16/44.1."

 

That is true, Fluke will only playback 16/44.1 (and 48?) but in this situation Fluke is only being used to allow iTunes to read the metadata for management, etc. - the actual FLAC file is being played by Amarra which can read higher resolution FLAC files.

 

Eloise

 

[Encore]

OK, thanks Eloise--now I get it. I had given up on this thread ... ;-) Good trick. Nice to know.

 

However, I'm still uncertain whether FLAC or AIFF sounded better in cosmuk's experience? In my system, WAV files converted from FLAC sound better than the original FLAC files, although after I set the decoding to take place in the Sq.server SW, i.e. in the netbook that runs the Sq.server, rather than in the Duet receiver itself, I'm not so sure anymore. Have you compared ALAC to AIFF files, Eloise? I seem to remember that Art Dudley in Stereophile also found AIFF files to sound better than ALAC files ...

 

 

 

[flashgordon]

Hi

 

I am new to this...so far have downloaded tracks from HDTracks.com in FLAC and converted them to ALAC using Max for playback in Itunes. I downloaded Fluke ver 0.11 for Tiger / PPC....but after running it and opening Itunes, it does not import the FLAC files. Not sure if I am getting this right..any help is much appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

[xsajohn]

2 things:

 

1. I don't think Fluke works with the latest version of Itunes yet (10).

2. Did you manually select the file/folder to add to Itunes?

 

[flashgordon]

Given my old system is PPC/Tiger OSX, itunes is ver 9 not 10. Yes, i tired to manually select the file to add to Itunes.

 

[Lowlands]

I so need to catch up on my reading... Never heard / noticed Fluke before..

I have a huge Flac collection and run Pure Music. I also read elsewhere on CA that PM plays flac..? Is that correct & is the way to go the same as Eloise explained for Amarra (Fluke to board it in iTunes library, PM engine to play..?)

Also, in theory, would memory play in PM (with flac to flat pcm decoding happening before that) mitigate any difference incompressed vs flat pcm playback..?

Sorry for 2nd question being a bit off-topic..

Hans