Poll: Are you going to use Apple's new Lossless Audio Encoder?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Are you going to use Apple's new Lossless Audio Encoder? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=409)

[wrldwzrd89]

I don't have a CD collection, so I have little use for Apple Lossless - therefore I voted No. At the time I posted this, there were only 3 votes cast - all were for different options and there were no votes for "Yes, use to import future songs".

[iBook]

From what I've heard, the file size doesn't reduce all that much and I don't know how willing I am to re-rip 200+ CDs. Has anyone quantified the improvement in audio quality? If most people listen to their iPods through headphones, would there be much of a difference anyway?

[wordmunger]

No way--I only have a 40-gig hard drive!

[dfa4]

I preface my comments with saying that I am certainly no audiophile. I really can't tell the difference b/w the new encoder and lossy AAC or MP3. So, I will save the room on my 15 GB iPod and 20 GB Cube harddrive. (Anyone want to buy me a new hard drive? :p )

--
Duane Fitzgerald Andrews
Cornell '99, Cornell Law '02
http://dandy.spymac.net

[Bear]

I would need a new iPod first. My two year old 10GB still works well.

Maybe when the battery dies, I'll look at buying a new iPod. Although I'm hoping mine lasts until after the next iPod announcement.

[wrldwzrd89]

I preface my comments with saying that I am certainly no audiophile. I really can't tell the difference b/w the new encoder and lossy AAC or MP3. So, I will save the room on my 15 GB iPod and 20 GB Cube harddrive. (Anyone want to buy me a new hard drive? :p )

--
Duane Fitzgerald Andrews
Cornell '99, Cornell Law '02
http://dandy.spymac.net
I can't tell the difference between AIFF and 128kbps AAC, so why should I use Apple Lossless? It will just use more space, and I won't even notice the increased quality.

[DStaal]

I'll be using it: I've got several CD's the deteriorated to the point where I can no longer play them, and the loss-less encoder will mean I have a good quality backup. (I could use MP3/AAC, but space is not a current problem, and I may need to burn and re-import at some point. If I have to do that a lossy compressed format will mean I loose data at every step, where the loss-less I don't.)

[the_mole1314]

I tried a cd in both AAC and APLE (hehe, get it?) and I found no difference AT ALL. I thought I heard a small difference, but I think it was the placebo effect at work, not an actual improvement. I think that APLE is better for big sound systems, not headphones and an iPod.

[punter]

I have already re ripped the cds where I will be able to notice a better quality encoding (as opposed to my lo fi stuff). They used to be aac192 and I can't tell the difference when listening via the headphone jack -> stereo. Maybe if I burn them ont cds.

[mkrishnan]

I'll be using it: I've got several CD's the deteriorated to the point where I can no longer play them, and the loss-less encoder will mean I have a good quality backup. (I could use MP3/AAC, but space is not a current problem, and I may need to burn and re-import at some point. If I have to do that a lossy compressed format will mean I loose data at every step, where the loss-less I don't.)

Do you mean they're scratched or the plastic actually deteriorated? How do you get them into the computer if you can't play them?

I guess we should just wait for the Terabyte iPod killer that gets released alongside Longhorn. :D

[evil]

i dont really see the need for loss-less.
to me the file size will still be way too big.
also, the current AAC encoder seems to work just fine, especially at the high bit rates.
i use 128 AAC through my home stereo and it sounds just fine to me.
so, the increased file size doesnt seem to justify the practically imperceivable difference.
the only people i could really seen liking the new encoder is music professionals or something like that.

[Mr.Hey]

I'll encode my favorites that are more frequently played and not entire albums. I've noticed the difference when in my car so this remedies one of the issues I've had.

[DStaal]

Do you mean they're scratched or the plastic actually deteriorated? How do you get them into the computer if you can't play them?

Scratched, with lots of minor scratches. A CD-repair kit might be able to recover some, but mostly I'll be encoding the rest of my collection, so that when the same happens to them I won't be without my music. (Though sometimes iTunes can read the almost-gone ones, so they are first priority.)

[TomSmithMacEd]

I just purchased my pair of Bose Triports. When you have high audio quality headphones/speakers you can very easily tell the difference between wma/AAC different byte rates and AAC/aiff.

[macdong]

it's perfect for my classic music collection.

[bdkennedy1]

I can't tell the difference between AIFF and 128kbps AAC, so why should I use Apple Lossless? It will just use more space, and I won't even notice the increased quality.

And on top of that it will drain down an iPod battery in only a couple hours.

[crees!]

I'm not a DJ or a studio engineer and have no practical use for it. Doesn't mean it's not a good thing though. I'm sure some people will get great use out of it.

[noverflow]

I just purchased my pair of Bose Triports. When you have high audio quality headphones/speakers you can very easily tell the difference between wma/AAC different byte rates and AAC/aiff.

Yeah with high end headphones you can definitely tell.
The problem is portability.
I really dont want to to cary around a headphone amp. And all the high end headphones need one.

[SiliconAddict]

I'll probably rerip my fav songs from CD to ALA. But only my fav songs. The file size is prohibitive on ALA.

[virividox]

i dont think i will.

i rip my cds 192 aac and burn copies if i want to play them on cds

and keep the originals and never play them hehe

[jeffy.dee-lux]

I'll use it when i just wanna make a copy of the cd. don't have an ipod or anything, and i'd just erase the files on my computer once its copied onto cd, so space isn't an issue when i'm just doing that.

[jkojima]

I'm going to save lossless for the special albums/ songs (and really, there aren't all that many I can think of that qualify for me). I can definitely hear the difference between encoding standards and bitrates, but am willing to put up with compression in order to maximize my iPod's 30gb capacity, which is already more than half filled.

I might suggest to my father, however, that he use lossless to archive his vinyl collection - one of those "one day I'll get around to it" projects. He has some rare albums, and some he is actually featured on (pro musician), so I think that's a good case.

Another good use I can think of will be as a working format for audio tracks in video projects (assuming FCP can read it - anybody try yet?). Might save a little disk space on big projects.

[MacFan25]

No, I won't be using the Lossless Encoder, but I'm really not that much of an audiophile. I want my songs to sound good, but I'm happy with AAC. And plus, I only have a 10GB iPod.

[Nermal]

I only have a couple of CDs where the difference is "worth it", but it's a noticeable improvement for those particular CDs.

[sethypoo]

128 AAC sound awesome to me, flawless in fact. I have not yet been able to tell a difference.

I'll use the lossless encoder for my favorite songs, like most people here are. :)

[isus]

its a nice feature that has its place im sure, expecially in the remix and sample worlds. aac and mp3 and wma and ogg sound like mud on a SERIOUS audio system. i won't use it personally, and i would have rather seen apple help develop and push aac a little more, but i'll survive.

then again, this is from the guy who's happy enough to listen to 128kbps mp3's.

[Awimoway]

Although my iPod is only 40% full--so space is not a concern--I won't use it because I'm not that much of an audiophile. AAC's sound fine to me. I'm happy Apple added it for those who need it, but it's not something I'll use.

[hulugu]

I would need a new iPod first. My two year old 10GB still works well.

Maybe when the battery dies, I'll look at buying a new iPod. Although I'm hoping mine lasts until after the next iPod announcement.


Exactly my problem, although I may just buy a new iPod for the helluvait after the next generation.

[nslyax]

I tried the Apple Lossless Encoder, and the file was reported as a 992kbps AAC file. I presume it is really some form of 1Mbps variable, since 992 is a somewhat off the wall number. Can anyone verify this, is it really just a very high bitrate AAC encoder?

[Sol]

I voted no because MP3 remains the best solution for me: at 160 kbs it sounds good, makes small files and is compatible with my MP3 player. This loss-less codec would be ideal for audiophiles who want the benefits of digital music without compromise in the sound but for portable music it is not very useful.

Perhaps Apple should sell music tracks in this new format.

[evo]

I hook my iPod up to a amp+speakers on a regular basis-and yes you can hear the difference. This is what makes Apple great, out-of-the-box thinking.

[pbooktebo]

I think I'll probably use it to keep my GarageBand files. They get dumped into iTunes uncompressed, and I often make 4-10 versions of a tune along the way to a finished product. Lossless is a nice way to keep these files in some way, but not lose any quality.

Not sure if I'll use this forever, but that's what I plan to do in the near-term.

[wdlove]

I voted no, because I don't understand what the new Lossless Audio Encoder is about.

[Doctor Q]

My long-term goal is to have all my music in an original-AIFF-quality lossless format, and I'd like to buy it that way online. Longer download times for this are fine with me. I'll back it up and reencode in lossy formats if I want to store mass quantities of music for frequent use or to put more in an iPod. That way, I can go back to the original whenever I want and change my mind about encoding methods. The key is having top quality to start with. A lossless format lets me do that without needing full AIFF-size storage.

[iMeowbot]

I tried the Apple Lossless Encoder, and the file was reported as a 992kbps AAC file. I presume it is really some form of 1Mbps variable, since 992 is a somewhat off the wall number. Can anyone verify this, is it really just a very high bitrate AAC encoder?

It really is a lossless codec, and not really AAC except that it recycles the same framing format. It feels like a bit of a kludge, but presumably this was the shortest path to getting Fair Play compatibility, and perhaps easier "splicing" with real AAC streams.

[crazytom]

I voted occasionally. While I can tell the difference between 128kbps and AIFF on studio monitors (less punch in the low end and the highs aren't crisp), I won't use it much because I usually listen to my iPod in noisy environments anyway..

[~Shard~]

I think the lossless option is great, but I’ll only use it occasionally. I don’t want to use up too much Hard Drive space unnecessarily, and for a lot of my music, normal AAC is just fine. I’d definitely use the lossless compression though for my classical music collection, as I can really hear the difference when those pieces of music are encoded using lossy AAC.

[mms]

I can't tell the difference at all, between most audio encodings. However, apparantly this is a good feature for some, which is good. I wonder if Apple would start selling iTMS songs encoded this way.

[~Shard~]

I can't tell the difference at all, between most audio encodings. However, apparantly this is a good feature for some, which is good. I wonder if Apple would start selling iTMS songs encoded this way.

This is where lots of people differ, because many cannot tell the difference, while many can. Being a musician since I was 6, playing classical music, composing, etc., I can easily hear the difference, but it's just the way my brain/ears have been trained. And although lossy AAC is fine for most of my music, as I'm not picky about the quality, I will DEFINITELY be using the lossless encoding for all my classical, jazz, etc. tunes, as lossy compression just doesn't cut it.

[evo]

This is where lots of people differ, because many cannot tell the difference, while many can. Being a musician since I was 6, playing classical music, composing, etc., I can easily hear the difference, but it's just the way my brain/ears have been trained. And although lossy AAC is fine for most of my music, as I'm not picky about the quality, I will DEFINITELY be using the lossless encoding for all my classical, jazz, etc. tunes, as lossy compression just doesn't cut it.

Speaking of lossy encoders, have you tried LAME?
here: http://lame.sourceforge.net/

[gopher]

I voted no since 192 bps compression on MP3 and 128 bps compression on AAC while noticeable on my new KOSS Pro3AA Titanium headphones, the sound quality isn't bad enough to make me switch to a different codec that uses more space.

[sjk]

Anyone know of comparisons of lossy formats that started from AIFF vs. AL (e.g. AIFF-to-AAC vs. AL-to-AAC)? In other words, how much effect does an AIFF-to-AL re-encoding have on further re-encoding to lossy formats?

[michaelrjohnson]

nope. i have no need, 256kbps MP3 is enough for me.

[jeffbistrong]

MAJOR WASTE OF THE APPLE'S $$$.

No, way, why would I want to re-rip all my CD. I already have all my CDs on my PowerBook G4 and my 5 GB IPOD (even though i have much more than 5GB of music). I am still not going to re-rip all my music, if i listen through head phones, maybe only a trained professional musician who has an ear for it can tell the difference. Invest the money in developing a new type of battery for the IPODS. Jst returned a 15Gb 3G IPOD becuase of the stinky batt life.

THIS WAS A TOTAL WASTE OF THE COMPANY'S MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME.

[sjk]

MAJOR WASTE OF THE APPLE'S $$$.

[...]

THIS WAS A TOTAL WASTE OF THE COMPANY'S MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME.Thanks for that LOUD proclamation of your selfish opinion. It's quite clear don't understand why Apple implemented it.

[WinterMute]

I've tested the lossless codec against .aiffs in a studio environment, there is a change in the HF reproduction above about 14 Khz (I didn't have an RTA handy, so it's a subjective response), plus there is a phase correlation change in the midrange that a good phase meter picks up.

What does this mean?

Nothing if you're not listening through studio grade monitors (Dynaudio M2's and a Chord amp in this case) and have the training to hear those kinds of artifacts.

Through my iPod with Sennheisser MX500 earbuds it is indistinguishable from .aiff.

I must say that I think .aiff is a compromise, and I can hear the differences between CD and master reproductions (but then I should, it's my job).

Apple lossless is good, on average it reduces an .aiff by between a half and a third, without significant audio degradation.

I'll not be using it on the iPod with any regularity, there's no point, if I need sonic quality, I'll stay with .aiff or with 24-bit 96Khz masters from ProTools.

[~Shard~]

I've tested the lossless codec against .aiffs in a studio environment, there is a change in the HF reproduction above about 14 Khz (I didn't have an RTA handy, so it's a subjective response), plus there is a phase correlation change in the midrange that a good phase meter picks up.

What does this mean?

Nothing if you're not listening through studio grade monitors (Dynaudio M2's and a Chord amp in this case) and have the training to hear those kinds of artifacts.

Through my iPod with Sennheisser MX500 earbuds it is indistinguishable from .aiff.

I must say that I think .aiff is a compromise, and I can hear the differences between CD and master reproductions (but then I should, it's my job).

Apple lossless is good, on average it reduces an .aiff by between a half and a third, without significant audio degradation.

I'll not be using it on the iPod with any regularity, there's no point, if I need sonic quality, I'll stay with .aiff or with 24-bit 96Khz masters from ProTools.

Thanks for the analysis, I was wondering many of these things myself. I realize for many people in this forum the above will not mean anything, as these are the people who can't hear the quality difference between audio CD and 128 kbps AAC, but for me, this means a lot, so thanks for the info. :cool:

[jeffbistrong]

Thanks for that LOUD proclamation of your selfish opinion. It's quite clear don't understand why Apple implemented it.



could you explain to me why apple implemented it?

[TyleRomeo]

My long-term goal is to have all my music in an original-AIFF-quality lossless format, and I'd like to buy it that way online. Longer download times for this are fine with me. I'll back it up and reencode in lossy formats if I want to store mass quantities of music for frequent use or to put more in an iPod. That way, I can go back to the original whenever I want and change my mind about encoding methods. The key is having top quality to start with. A lossless format lets me do that without needing full AIFF-size storage.

im with you man. i have all my songs in AIFF all 230GB +. It's about having the original highest quality files and then you can compress them for ipods or apple laptops. Now I'm still a little unsure about apple lossless encoder since they give very little info on it. I have shns and flac files, which i trust that i can convert back and forth wih all i want without losing any quality but I'm sure once apple gives me some more information about its lossless encoder I'll try it out.

Tyler

[Doctor Q]

It shouldn't be hard to confirm that the lossless encoder is indeed lossless. Just convert some good-quality music from AIFF to lossless to AIFF to lossless to AIFF to lossless, and so on. If the encoder introduces any loss, you will start to hear degradation. If not, it's lossless.

[sjk]

could you explain to me why apple implemented it?Not authoritatively, but I'd enjoy thinking of some interesting possible reasons instead of throwing out negative, unfounded accusations that it was a waste of time and money to do so. Frankly, your initial angrily aggressive attitude probably wouldn't inspire anyone to tell you even if they did know.

[sjk]

It shouldn't be hard to confirm that the lossless encoder is indeed lossless. [...]Thanks for the AIFF->AL->AIFF->AL->... re-encoding suggestion. That's something I may try after my faster Mac arrives in a few days. :)

[jnasato]

I think one of the main reasons why a lot of people can't hear the difference in sound quality between different encoding formats is because their speakers/headphones aren't so great.

After buying my Sennheiser HD590s, I was hearing all sorts of things in my music that I couldn't hear before.

[~Shard~]

I think one of the main reasons why a lot of people can't hear the difference in sound quality between different encoding formats is because their speakers/headphones aren't so great.

After buying my Sennheiser HD590s, I was hearing all sorts of things in my music that I couldn't hear before.

This is a very good point - I know people who have such poor speakers that even when they listen to tracks on their iPod they hear things they didn't hear before on their Macs through their actual speakers!

[sjk]

After buying my Sennheiser HD590s, I was hearing all sorts of things in my music that I couldn't hear before.Same with my HD580's, which also left me wanting a better amplifier. :)

[Blue Moon]

I have to say this whole thing confused me at first. I read Apple's description of the encoder and it said that there'd be better sound w/ a smaller file size. I was using the iTunes default settings, AAC (128kbps), so when I saw my hard driving depeleting quickly (after switching to Apple Lossless) I decided to compare the difference between default settings and the Apple Lossless. The difference was amazing, my Undisputed Truth "The Collection" album was 480 MB with Apple's Encoder, and 70 MB using the default settings. I understand now that they meant the file size would be smaller than the actual information stored on the CD but I did feel a little misled.

I'm sorry folks the difference is way too great. I rip about 10 to 15 CD's a day, I can't be bothered with the slightly better sound quality it provides. I am an audiophile but I'm also an ecclectic music lover, which means I want to get as much music as I can get my hands on and this encoder is just not compatible with that desire.

[Steven1621]

i really can't tell the difference in quality and standard mp3 is good enough for me.

[grneyedjay]

Why? Lossy compression is so much better! Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Honestly though, folks, I hate compression, and my entire digital audio collection consists of wave files of my fav tunes.

[gopher]

Why? Lossy compression is so much better! Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Honestly though, folks, I hate compression, and my entire digital audio collection consists of wave files of my fav tunes.

So that's why Apple made the XServe G5 RAID :D Now then will I spend $10,000 to make sure all my music is digital without compression?

[grneyedjay]

So that's why Apple made the XServe G5 RAID :D Now then will I spend $10,000 to make sure all my music is digital without compression?

My problem is that I can never decide what compression to use for my music for a) I want it to sound good b) it needs to be cross-platform and c) it needs to have widespread compatability. iTunes AAC is good, however, not every computer that I work on will be a Mac or have iTunes. WMA is also good, but I hate the resulting distortions sound of its compression scheme. So I end up with MP3. But then what Bit Rate? 128 is okay, but I can really hear when it the sound breaks apart, 160 is better but good enough, and then I arrive at 192--but somehow, that doesn't seem like a big enough jump from 128. Then, I'm more or less left with 256 or 320. Too many choices, and in the end, the easiest choice is to just have the dang files in an uncompressed format, so I won't ever be trying to see if I can tell how well the sound is compressed or not and with what format, because that's all I do when I listen to compressed music. But then again, I don't have money for a Terabyte hard drive yet either. Oye! :(