• 0

How To Play Flac's On a iPod


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Convert them to V0 or 320kb/s MP3s and they'll stay in good enough quality... You can do that with lame.

If you want to convert them to a lossless format that the iPod supports you'll need to use Apple lossless, but I have no idea how to convert FLAC to that... never used apple's lossless format before.

  • 0

Quality wise any lossless format wins (so something like ALAC or FLAC), Then it's AAC, or MP3 at a high bitrate.

Converting wise, I can't help, but if you can get it into iTunes you can convert it to anything iTunes understands (including MP3, AAC and ALAC)

  • 0

I can't get it into iTunes in its present format which is flac... thats why I wan't to convert it into the highest quality possible format that iTunes and iPod can support...

Which format is that and how do I convert it?

Are Lame MP3's higher quality better than AAC and ALAC?

  • 0

To actually answer the question, Rockbox: http://www.rockbox.org/

No, LAME is not higher quality than AAC, and definitely not higher quality than ALAC. If you don't want to use Rockbox and want highest possible quality, use ALAC, or use AAC to save some space (Ogg Vorbis if you do use Rockbox).

  • 0

Convert FLAC to MP3

I wrote this somewhere else.

FLAC Frontend

Page: http://free-codecs.com/FLAC_download.htm

Direct: http://free-codecs.com/download_soft.php?d=3678&s=18

LAME Encoder 3.97 Final

Page: http://www.free-codecs.com/Lame_Encoder_download.htm

Direct: http://rarewares.poskolio.com/lame3.97.zip

Razorlame

Page: http://www.dors.de/razorlame/download.php

Direct: http://www.dors.de/razorlame/razorlame.zip

1. Unzip, install, and open FLAC Frontend.

2. Drag and Drop or click "Add Files" to search for the files you would like to convert.

3. If you would like to change where the files decode to, click the "..." button to search for a directory.

*. Make sure you have "Decode through errors" UNchecked.

4. Uncheck "Replay Gain".

*. Make sure "Verify" is checked.

lz7761203964167.gif

5. Hit the "Decode" button, and a DOS box will pop-up, and start decoding the flac, back to the original WAV.

6. Hit any key to exit the box, when done and verified.

pa3631203964506.gif

7. Unzip, install, and open Razorlame.

8. Unzip and copy Lame.exe into the Razorlame directory.

9. Open Razorlame and hit Edit > LAME Options.

*. Or click the LAME toolbar button.

10. Either you can have the wavs encoded to the same input directory or you can have it encode to another.

rt9341203965375.gif

11. Click the "Expert" tab.

12. Check "Only use custom Options".

*. Now most people would want to convert to 320kbps. So that is what I am going to use for the tutorial.

13. Type "-b 320" (without the quotes) into the custom options.

14. Hit "OK".

*. You can also save the options, if you like. Just hit the "Save Options" Button.

df8071203965085.gif

15. Click Edit > Options.

16. Click the folder button under "LAME", to search where you installed Lame.exe (which we installed into the Razrolame directory).

*. Mines installed elsewhere in the screenshot.

17. Hit "OK".

nm6001203966211.gif

18. Drag and Drop or click "Add" to search for the files you would like to encode.

19. Hit the "Encode" button on the toolbar to start encoding.

ui9451203966543.gif

Now go to the directory where you set the files to be encoded to, and either put them on your portable music device or play them instantly!

Here's some common switches for different birates:

320kbps

-b 320

220-260kbps

-V 0 --vbr-new

170-210kbps

-V 2 --vbr-new

  • 0
To actually answer the question, Rockbox: http://www.rockbox.org/

No, LAME is not higher quality than AAC, and definitely not higher quality than ALAC. If you don't want to use Rockbox and want highest possible quality, use ALAC, or use AAC to save some space (Ogg Vorbis if you do use Rockbox).

If you want the highest quality (and you're not using a lossless codec), Use 320Kbps AAC (I prefer 256Kps VBR AAC, but that's just me)

  • 0

Mediacoder looks excellent for most purposes. I was just thinking that according to the list of supported codecs, ALAC isn't one of them. That would be the technically highest quality (short of installing rockbox) since its lossless -> lossless. Not that I even recommend playing a lossless codec on a portable player. Personally, I would convert to AAC for the iPod, or VBR MP3 for compatibility with other devices in which case...get mediacoder

  • 0

Rockbox doesn't support all models of iPod at the moment so firstly before you even think about using it you need to check whether it is supported. You can get the current Rockbox build here and obviously if your iPod doesn't appear on that page then it isn't supported.

Rockbox is excellent in that it allows you to play a lot more audio formats on the iPod than the stock firmware offers. However it's also requires work to get it to install and get it configured as you like it. If you don't want to use low bitrate aac, vorbis or FLAC (which I wouldn't recommend on a portable device anyway, purely as the quality of the internal components alone will make hearing a difference between lossless and lossy extremely tough) then don't bother with rockbox. It'll be more effort than is worth it. Sticking with the stock firmware then you're with either MP3 or AAC, and both are more or less equal in quality so long as you use a decent encoder (Nero for aac, lame for mp3).

I'm afraid I don't have any experience with mediacoder - I use Foobar for all my transcoding needs. For my part i'll point you in the direction of the LAME, Nero AAC and Foobar guides over at Hydrogenaudio.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!