PDA

View Full Version : whats apple lossless




iSaygoodbye
Feb 9, 2009, 09:19 AM
Whats apple lossles?



brn2ski00
Feb 9, 2009, 09:21 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

bozz2006
Feb 9, 2009, 09:43 AM
the short version is that it's a file type (like MP3), that does not lose any of the sound quality. that's the upside, the downside is that the files are massive.

Teej guy
Feb 9, 2009, 09:46 AM
the short version is that it's a file type (like MP3), that does not lose any of the sound quality. that's the upside, the downside is that the files are massive.

They're not exactly massive. They're smaller than wav or aiff files of exactly the same song in exactly the same quality.

Considering you can pick up a 1TB hard drive for about 150 including an enclosure these days, I think we need to redefine what "massive" is.

iSaygoodbye
Feb 9, 2009, 09:46 AM
the short version is that it's a file type (like MP3), that does not lose any of the sound quality. that's the upside, the downside is that the files are massive.

like how big per song

themoonisdown09
Feb 9, 2009, 09:48 AM
like how big per song

They're somewhere in the range of 20-40 MB per song. It all depends on the length of the song and what is going on.

iSaygoodbye
Feb 9, 2009, 09:52 AM
They're somewhere in the range of 20-40 MB per song. It all depends on the length of the song and what it going on.

ok im defiently not converting to that

alphaod
Feb 9, 2009, 11:03 AM
ok im defiently not converting to that

Basically unless you use headphones that can produce the smallest details, you don't need it; but it's always good to have. For example when I rip classical music, I don't want iTunes taking out the small triangle in the background. Sure you can't hear it most of the time, but it nice to hear it sometimes.

BTW that what's what other lossy compressions do.

Michael CM1
Feb 9, 2009, 05:48 PM
It's the best friend of hard drive makers.

It's basically an improvement over the .wav format that doesn't lose any of the audio file's data through compression. I'm not saying the sound isn't better, but it's a huge tradeoff for the exponentially larger file sizes you're going to have. While I get the rationale behind people who use it, the iTunes Plus format files sound pretty darn good to me.

MattZani
Feb 9, 2009, 06:09 PM
If your serious about music, do it, if not, MP3 or AAC at 320Kbp's is fine.

When i have external storage, im going to rip all my CD's Lossless, and then just keep MP3 copies on my iPhone and MBP. Shame this is only ~10% of my Library...

GGJstudios
Feb 9, 2009, 06:13 PM
They're somewhere in the range of 20-40 MB per song...Yikes! That could push my library up toward 1TB! No thanks!

Jolly Jimmy
Feb 10, 2009, 07:54 AM
ok im defiently not converting to that

What exactly would you be converting? Remember that a lossy format file such as mp3 or AAC will not gain in quality if you convert it to a lossless format like Flac or Apple lossless. Also, avoid converting a lossy file into another lossy format, because the quality will only get worse.

Julien
Feb 11, 2009, 06:27 PM
ok im defiently not converting to that

You don't convert to it (unless you have a WAV or FLAC file), you rip to it.

MovingInStereo
Feb 12, 2009, 08:58 AM
Just a question about the CD ripping itself.

Does is it matter about the sound quality of the CD itself?

I mean is a CD from 1988 going to sound the same as CD from 2008 if you rip them at the same bit rate, (say 256) and play it back through a decent stereo?

Also how about remastered CD's,

Should not the remastered CD have a higher quality sound then the original even if they get ripped at the same bit rate?

Thank You in advance

H$R
Feb 12, 2009, 09:03 AM
They're not exactly massive. They're smaller than wav or aiff files of exactly the same song in exactly the same quality.

Considering you can pick up a 1TB hard drive for about 150 including an enclosure these days, I think we need to redefine what "massive" is.

massive..you're right about the Terabyte drives..but in the end he might someone actually wants to listen to it on his/her iPod/iPhone..and there the space is still pretty limited.

Teej guy
Feb 12, 2009, 10:01 AM
Does is it matter about the sound quality of the CD itself?

I mean is a CD from 1988 going to sound the same as CD from 2008 if you rip them at the same bit rate, (say 256) and play it back through a decent stereo?

Also how about remastered CD's,

Should not the remastered CD have a higher quality sound then the original even if they get ripped at the same bit rate?

I'm not sure I entirely understand the angle you're coming from with this question. What you put in determines what you get out. There are good sounding CDs from 1988 and bad sounding CDs from 2008. The year doesn't really have anything to do with it. Many remastered CDs actually sound worse than the original CDs due to excessive use of brickwall limiting, a form of dynamic compression (the compression of loud and soft sounds, NOT to be compared with MP3/AAC compression which is data compression to make a smaller file. You can read more about excessive dynamics compression here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_War

The bit-rate determines how many bits the encoder can use, and it tries to make the music as transparent as possible compared to the original source.

massive..you're right about the Terabyte drives..but in the end he might someone actually wants to listen to it on his/her iPod/iPhone..and there the space is still pretty limited.

But that's the great thing about lossless and large hard drives. You can keep a lossless copy of all your music, and then encode copies in lossy formats for your portable devices. If another lossy codec comes along in the future and takes over where MP3 and AAC eventually leave off, you still have all your lossless rips to encode from, whereas if you rip everything in today's lossy format, you'll have to re-rip further on down the line to keep up to date (I'm thinking 5-10 years in the future here...whenever the successor to AAC comes out and becomes widely adopted)

H$R
Feb 12, 2009, 10:08 AM
But that's the great thing about lossless and large hard drives. You can keep a lossless copy of all your music, and then encode copies in lossy formats for your portable devices. If another lossy codec comes along in the future and takes over where MP3 and AAC eventually leave off, you still have all your lossless rips to encode from, whereas if you rip everything in today's lossy format, you'll have to re-rip further on down the line to keep up to date (I'm thinking 5-10 years in the future here...whenever the successor to AAC comes out and becomes widely adopted)

Ok, that's true. Good point. But I guess not many people think so much into the future. And I say: if mp3 (which is pretty old now) and AAC are good enough in my ears today, they will also be good enough in 5 years and more.

Sure, to be confident that you really "have the best you can have right now and in the future", it's good to have a lossless copy. But I wouldn't even want to think how much time it would need to re-encode everything.

I also don't re-rip my CD's which I've ripped in 128kbit years ago. I could have done them in a higher quality then, but with my ears and the all these normal cheap headphones it normally alright.

Who ever it was who brought the thing with classical music, that's true too. But with most modern music, I don't see the point.

my 0.02 cents

Sgt.Pepper
Feb 13, 2009, 02:25 AM
Just a question about the CD ripping itself.

Does is it matter about the sound quality of the CD itself?

I mean is a CD from 1988 going to sound the same as CD from 2008 if you rip them at the same bit rate, (say 256) and play it back through a decent stereo?

Also how about remastered CD's,

Should not the remastered CD have a higher quality sound then the original even if they get ripped at the same bit rate?

Thank You in advance

Not necessarily, it all depends on the recording, which varies on a case by case basis. The loudness war, which a previous poster linked to is wrecking many modern recordings, so that CD's today very often sound worse than old CD's. Most musicians do not have the power to tell the record companies, and sound engineers what to do. This isn't every recording though, it's just something to be aware of because it does happen.

As far as releases go, it really depends. Some releases, which are advertised as digitally remastered, will sound worse as they'll be affected by the loudness war in the remastering process, others will have much care put into them and they'll sound better than the original on rerelease.
Many people feel that the original vinyl release is best in many cases. Led Zeppelins music being one example.

What I'm getting at, is there isn't a set rule.
Hope that helped.

Mr X
Feb 15, 2009, 09:02 AM
But that's the great thing about lossless and large hard drives. You can keep a lossless copy of all your music, and then encode copies in lossy formats for your portable devices. If another lossy codec comes along in the future and takes over where MP3 and AAC eventually leave off, you still have all your lossless rips to encode from, whereas if you rip everything in today's lossy format, you'll have to re-rip further on down the line to keep up to date (I'm thinking 5-10 years in the future here...whenever the successor to AAC comes out and becomes widely adopted)


Hmmm nice post Teej guy. It's actually given me an idea.

I've just ripped all my CDs again to lossless, the size is fine for me. So basically for a portable device (iphone/ipod) do I then just select the whole library and convert to lower lossy format. BUT how do I store this seperate or is it a case of creating a new library and selecting that one when I open iTunes?

OnaMacSince1989
Mar 11, 2009, 05:23 PM
So if I rip CD's to my iMac and iTunes using the Lossless format, is there a setting in iTunes that allows songs synched to my iPod to using a lower quailty format (thus enabling me to fit more songs on my iPod at one time)?

themoonisdown09
Mar 11, 2009, 05:35 PM
So if I rip CD's to my iMac and iTunes using the Lossless format, is there a setting in iTunes that allows songs synched to my iPod to using a lower quailty format (thus enabling me to fit more songs on my iPod at one time)?

No. You'll have to re-encode the songs from Apple Lossless to MP3 or AAC.

Galley
Mar 11, 2009, 07:31 PM
So if I rip CD's to my iMac and iTunes using the Lossless format, is there a setting in iTunes that allows songs synched to my iPod to using a lower quailty format (thus enabling me to fit more songs on my iPod at one time)?

Only if it is a shuffle.

OnaMacSince1989
Mar 12, 2009, 05:04 PM
No. You'll have to re-encode the songs from Apple Lossless to MP3 or AAC.

Thanks!

If I re-encode the songs to a lesser format, can I later re-encode them back up to Lossless or would I have to re-rip them from CD again in Lossless format?

Jolly Jimmy
Mar 12, 2009, 05:50 PM
If I re-encode the songs to a lesser format, can I later re-encode them back up to Lossless or would I have to re-rip them from CD again in Lossless format?

You will need to re-rip your CD's again. Keep a backup of your lossless files and make any lossy copies from them.

ntrigue
Mar 12, 2009, 10:10 PM
iTunes Plus songs are what then?

DoFoT9
Mar 12, 2009, 10:13 PM
iTunes Plus songs are what then?

pretty sure they are just AAC ripped at 256kbps.

i have been using apple lossless (aif or FLAC) a LOT more lately, just sounds SO much better. size isnt an issue

Julien
Mar 13, 2009, 12:11 PM
pretty sure they are just AAC ripped at 256kbps...

...plus no added DRM.

Consultant
Mar 13, 2009, 01:23 PM
So if I rip CD's to my iMac and iTunes using the Lossless format, is there a setting in iTunes that allows songs synched to my iPod to using a lower quailty format (thus enabling me to fit more songs on my iPod at one time)?

There is a script that does that.
http://dougscripts.com/itunes/scripts/ss.php?sp=convertandexport

Dmac77
Mar 13, 2009, 11:22 PM
Apple Lossless is an uncompressed audio format. Kind of like MP3 except you don;t lose any parts of the audio, and therefor the audio is higher fidelity. If you don't know what it is, you don;t need to bother with it.

Don

DoFoT9
Mar 13, 2009, 11:23 PM
...plus no added DRM.

yea good point, some of the 129kbps didnt have DRM though.

DaftUnion
Mar 13, 2009, 11:43 PM
If your serious about music, do it, if not, MP3 or AAC at 320Kbp's is fine.

When i have external storage, im going to rip all my CD's Lossless, and then just keep MP3 copies on my iPhone and MBP. Shame this is only ~10% of my Library...

No offense, but that's entirely just an opinion. I'm serious about music, as I'm sure others are with meticulous attention to cover art/file naming/conversion (high bitrate 256kbps LAME mp3 encoding)

The fact is, if you're ripping at a high enough bitrate or using apple lossless, all that really matters is that if you can't tell a difference between the two, it shouldn't really matter what you use. Yes, formats change and you can't rerip it if you didn't do apple lossless or FLAC, but if you can't tell the difference between the original and a high end "lossy" encoding, I'm personally fine with that.

I guess this is my opinion about it as well.

Galley
Mar 14, 2009, 10:23 PM
Apple Lossless is an uncompressed audio format. Kind of like MP3 except you don;t lose any parts of the audio, and therefor the audio is higher fidelity. If you don't know what it is, you don;t need to bother with it.

Don

Apple Lossless is compressed, it's just not lossy. The average bitrate is 800-1000Kbps, whereas uncompressed WAV files are 1411Kbps.