Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC) Now Open Source
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thinking...
As a musician who takes pains to make my stuff sound good I'm happy because it presents my listeners with more options.
I've always felt the MPEG compressed versions of some of my tracks lack punch and definition and sound anemic.
The lossless codec encoding of, say, my track "symmetry" actually sounds the most like the aiff original of all the formats I have at my disposal.
The wider this codec is dispersed the better it is for me and my listeners. My two cents.
As a musician who takes pains to make my stuff sound good I'm happy because it presents my listeners with more options.
I've always felt the MPEG compressed versions of some of my tracks lack punch and definition and sound anemic.
The lossless codec encoding of, say, my track "symmetry" actually sounds the most like the aiff original of all the formats I have at my disposal.
The wider this codec is dispersed the better it is for me and my listeners. My two cents.
Punch and definition are just words that mean nothing in this stuff. Using Lame with a setting V0 pretty much going to be 100% transparent. You must do a blind listening test (ABX) otherwise your results are irrelevant.
Obsessive me...
That would be ideal. For me though, like another user mentioned, I still use 320 AAC for some stuff, as there's no way to cram 150 days worth of music onto a 2.5" hard drive if it's to be completely lossless. I'm about to sort of redo my whole library, and while I do very much prefer lossless, I also very much want to take as much as possible with me, especially on a long road trip or something. I think I'm gonna use a 12" PowerBook G4 as my "iPod" from now on, and just connect a 750 GB or 1 TB drive to it. ***** me, where does it end....
That would be ideal. For me though, like another user mentioned, I still use 320 AAC for some stuff, as there's no way to cram 150 days worth of music onto a 2.5" hard drive if it's to be completely lossless. I'm about to sort of redo my whole library, and while I do very much prefer lossless, I also very much want to take as much as possible with me, especially on a long road trip or something. I think I'm gonna use a 12" PowerBook G4 as my "iPod" from now on, and just connect a 750 GB or 1 TB drive to it. ***** me, where does it end....
Naw. In this forum, they're just words, yes. But to each individual listener, it is difficult to describe the subtle differences one hears. Your seemingly irrefutable point is based on the premise that the dude is drinking the Kool-Aid of lossless. I imagine this happens often, but how could you possibly assume that his impressions are completely contrived/baseless?
I believe you are confusing .mp3 and .png
Not confusing anything. If one is ripping their cd's using lossless over lossy for superior sound then they are going to be highly disappointed.
Me, because from a better source you can always make lower quality version, but not vice versa.
For anyone interested here is a very good read http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295
Does anybody know if I would be able to hear the difference between lossy and lossless music on a pair of Incase Sonic headphones?
http://storeimages.apple.com/2044/a...icub&op_usm=0.5,0.5,0,0&iccEmbed=0&layer=comp
They costed $200 and came out this fall.
http://storeimages.apple.com/2044/a...icub&op_usm=0.5,0.5,0,0&iccEmbed=0&layer=comp
They costed $200 and came out this fall.
The end of ALAC support?
I am pretty sure music companies do not want their tracks available in lossless quality without DRM. Since iTunes store tracks are available without DRM I would assume this rules out lossless versions of them for a long time...
In that light I would not be surprised if Apple will move away from Apple Lossless and no longer support it with future i- devices. iCloud music will certainly not support Apple Lossless nor will iTunes Match.
Hence perhaps the move to make it open source, so the open source community could pick it up, if they so choose to.
And btw, not every iPod ever supported Apple Lossless. No iPod shuffle supported it AFAIK. They force-converted ALAC tracks to AAC on the fly.
Call me cynical, but I would say it is a sign of the opposite.
I am pretty sure music companies do not want their tracks available in lossless quality without DRM. Since iTunes store tracks are available without DRM I would assume this rules out lossless versions of them for a long time...
In that light I would not be surprised if Apple will move away from Apple Lossless and no longer support it with future i- devices. iCloud music will certainly not support Apple Lossless nor will iTunes Match.
Hence perhaps the move to make it open source, so the open source community could pick it up, if they so choose to.
And btw, not every iPod ever supported Apple Lossless. No iPod shuffle supported it AFAIK. They force-converted ALAC tracks to AAC on the fly.
We don't have your ears so no one can answer that but the general answer is NO if done with a high quality codec at a decent bitrate.
One must perform their own ABX tests to determine what bit-rate is required to reach transparency
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295
Of course, if one were to use a shuffle, this who discussion goes ker-splat. I know first-hand that the DACs on the latest shuffles are absolutely *****. Not that I would expect it to be amazing, but yeah, it's garbage.
YeaI imagine if one were to use ALAC, they would use something that would be able to give a good representation of it's quality.
Man, if Apple ever convinces the studios to let them offer lossless files, that would be awesome.
And if they let you "upgrade" your music like when they moved to iTunes Plus across the board, they'll be getting a ton of money from me.
And if they let you "upgrade" your music like when they moved to iTunes Plus across the board, they'll be getting a ton of money from me.
I don't get why this is a big deal. I mean I understand the benefit of lossless, primarily once you start talking about decent audio equipment. But I might buy one physical CD per year compared to the dozens of iTunes albums I buy. I wouldn't have the room for any lossless music on my iPhone, but I would love for lossless to be an option for purchases. I still miss the awesomeness of DTS audio discs compared to the generic output of CDs and digital audio files.
Depends on the tracks and your age.
A little background info:
I rip all my CDs to ALAC yet also convert them to 256bit AAC. The ALAC version is for archiving and high-end audio equipment while the AAC version is for my jogging iPods.
[On a side note: I wish Apple would offer a 320GB iPod Classic since all my ALAC tracks currently fill about 260GB of HD space. Would be awesome to have all my music in lossless quality with me. Best compromise I found so far are the 240GB RapidRepair iPod harddisk upgrades for the 5.5gen iPods. Anyone know of any other option like this with higher capacity?]
With all my music available to me in lossless and 256bit AAC I often do blind test to compare one against the other.
From these tests I can say that especially tracks I know well (favorite tracks) which use crisp high pitched notes e.g. from synth or violins I can tell the difference accurately. AAC tracks just sound muffled and muddy in comparison - if you know what to listen for. At one point I also tried 320bit AACs with same results.
There is value in lossless audio, especially for tracks you love and which use high crystal clear sounds where you would like to hear them in as good a quality as you can have.
But there are also tracks where differences are much harder to discern.
At least for me.
With age also your ability to hear higher pitched notes is diminishing too.