What do you mean 'What would be the reason of wanting to do this?' Why would you not want to do that?
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
What do you mean 'What would be the reason of wanting to do this?' Why would you not want to do that?
I once compared the audio quality of the first (white stick) iPod Shuffle from a friend to my iPod nano at the time and the Shuffle did sound much warmer and better. It did have a better audio chip than the nano at the time. Yet the nano offered ALAC support while the Shuffle didn't.
I understand that to most people it makes little sense to have ALAC tracks on a 512MB Shuffle, but if you consider that a CD compresses to roughly 200-250MB in ALAC that Shuffle could hold 2-3 CDs in CD quality. Compare that to your old school Sony DiscMan which could only hold 1 CD at a time, this would be an improvement.
Not sure it's true but someone at the time mused that the Shuffle's chips were not fast enough to handle the data throughput required for ALAC tracks. Maybe they are clocked lower to preserve battery power...
Last edited:
I have my music in either Mp3 Lame V0 or AAC 256 vbr going to lossless i will increase file size, shorten battery life on my portables and be limited to where the files can be played. It probably cost more too. All this to gain nothing when listening to my music.
Good news but years too late
Good news but far too late. If Apple had done this years ago we Apple Lossesless would be the defacto standard.
I buy lossless encoded music when I can. Usually directly from the band's website. More often then not, they sell FLAC.
iTunes still doesn't recognize FLAC.
Importing FLAC files into iTunes is possible but harder than it should be.
Good news but far too late. If Apple had done this years ago we Apple Lossesless would be the defacto standard.
I buy lossless encoded music when I can. Usually directly from the band's website. More often then not, they sell FLAC.
iTunes still doesn't recognize FLAC.
Importing FLAC files into iTunes is possible but harder than it should be.
Oh yeah! Looks like Dreamail tried it out. I picked one of the latest ones to use for working out, but opted to stick to my iPhone 4 for now. With my Shure SE535s, I could immediately discern the difference when listening to Echoes by Pink Floyd (from Pompeii). The openings sounds from Wright and Gilmour were comparatively thin and "all or none": When the sound quieted to a certain point, it just disappeared, rather than becoming more soft during those opening seconds. In the span of a minute or two, I quickly scanned several other songs and the difference was immediately apparent. Not that I'm complaining at all. For a device that costs them like $20 or whatever to produce, it's still fairly remarkable.
The problem with FLAC is that without native playback support on the iPod, iPad and iPhone, that format is only for a very limited group of users if you're not computer-savvy.
Because the vast majority of iPods, all iPhones and all iPads can play back ALAC files natively, that means there's already a potentially huge market for high-quality digital music in ALAC format should any record company decide to offer such format music for download through the iTunes Store.
Because the vast majority of iPods, all iPhones and all iPads can play back ALAC files natively, that means there's already a potentially huge market for high-quality digital music in ALAC format should any record company decide to offer such format music for download through the iTunes Store.
Why do people always say high quality? The fact is the vast majority of the world (99.9%) can't tell the difference between a lossless and lossy, most can't even tell between a 128 mp3 and lossless (many properly conducted listening tests have proven this)
FLAC is the preferred choice for a lot of independent artists - Bandcamp offers it on all their downloads.
I would have preferred it if Apple had supported FLAC all along instead of insisting they make their own proprietary format as usual. I tried ALAC when it was introduced but eventually the drawbacks outweighed the sonic benefits. When my 64GB Touch reached capacity and I had to keep removing songs from sync I just gave up and switched to the highest bit rate AAC for everything. Especially since AAC is supported natively by nearly all audio devices and DLNA products. I can transfer files easily to almost any device I have or others have and it sounds pretty good.
I'd rather have a 10MB file that's easier to transport and store than a 20MB file in a format that nobody else currently uses. Especially when the Touch is still stuck at 64GB. The older Classic shouldn't still outpace the newer device after all this time, but it does.
That is because they do not know the difference. I once read that a lot of young people have come to expect the tin-ish sound of compressed mp3's from music, the way people in the old days expected crackling from vinyl.
This is a totally valid point. Depends on whether you still want to listen to your current music library many years in the future. though.
If you consume music by the month, replacing everything constantly, never to listen to again, then you really do gain nothing.
Some CDs I bought when I was in high school and still listen to 10+ years later. Many of them are my favorites and I see no reason why I would not listen to them in 10 years still.
Lots of these CDs are now considered 'rare' and no longer available, not on iTunes or any other download source.
This is one of the reasons why I convert them to ALAC: it is a 1:1 (audio quality) backup. Easier to stash than CD-R copies would.
Another reason is future codecs.
I am sure 10 years down the line even AAC will have evolved. To AAC+ or AAC-HD whatever.
Have you ever tried to re-rip a 256bitAAC track into e.g. a 320bit AAC track? Because the source is already lossy in quality you end up with a much worse copy, more akin to 128bit AAC in audio quality (even though you use 320bit AAC). Much like when you try to save a 60% quality JPEG image as yet another 60% JPEG. The result looks more like a 30-40% quality.
My point is,whatever format I want to re-rip my CDs to 10 years down the line will depend on the music player I will own at the time. Perhaps it is not an Apple device? I can safely do any re-converting from ALAC. With AAC I am stuck - forever (unless I accept a dip in audio quality).
Those two reasons give me peace of mind. And this is what I gain - despite all the extra pain.
That is completely arguable. If you value accuracy, versatility, convenience and a low noise-floor then CD is the superior format. Maybe it lacks the romanticism of the LP experience but it is far from a step back. In fact, given all the benefits listed above, it is more like a few steps forward.
As for AAC being a step back, perhaps instead of comparing it to LPs you should compare it to the portable formats of the past like MiniDiscs (all seven that were sold) and cassette tapes. If audio quality comparable to Audio-CDs and the convenience of having my entire music library in my pocket is a step back then I for one am happy to do this dance.
Please provide sources because I've read these tests carried out by audio publications and almost everyone can tell the difference between an MP3 at 128 and any format at a higher bit rate.
If you relied on the opinions of people who can't tell a difference in quality then you'd still be using a plastic beige box instead of a Mac made of aluminum. 99.9% didn't care what a computer was made of until Apple started making them with better materials.
Why would anyone want to exert effort when they don't need to. there are people who make money and wasting time in things like this is makes no sense.
Now that ALAC is free we could bee seen other devices using it. I am not sure if it will actually mean much for the people with apple products since Airplay has basically changed how I do things at home I rather see more Airplay integration since I doubt I will stop using Apple product as long as "they just work" which I can't say for other sources.
This is under double blinded listening tests (ABX) meaning they could not hear the difference between the 2 files. Nothing to do with what one has come to expect.
The placebo effect plays a very large part one must do a double blind test to really determine if they can hear a difference or it's just in their head.
MiniDisc audio in ATRAC was actually excellent for it's time. Especially since most players had direct optical inputs for recording directly from CD and were in a sense portable recording studios capable of recording, editing and titling.
And as for popular they were in Europe. My Sharp 821 is one of the best audio devices I've ever bought 12 years ago and it's construction was better then the early iPods. Solid metal body, buttons and switches. It still works perfectly today.
I could be wrong but I think its really about the medium that most people have. Really who has some real speakers at home that are not computer speakers. Yes I do and maybe a few here, but now many can actually say they have put money into some high fidelity speakers that you can hear the difference. Who posting here is willing to fork over 3 grand for some good speakers not to mention a few more grand for stereo and other hi-fidelity equipment. I am not saying you have to be an audiophile to enjoy good music so no 50 grand speakers. But considering how the people I know have at most 100 dollar speakers I can see where no one could notice the difference no matter what medium they where using.
<cynic mood ON>Yes indeed, why would they rather create their own proprietary format and not go with FLAC?
Only answer I can think of is that Apple at some point wanted the ability to offer record companies a proprietary DRM based solution for lossless audio quality. FLAC might have been too easy to crack or perhaps ALAC would also offer them extra legal protection (of reverse-engineering) on patent grounds.
Now that ALAC is open source, I suppose none of this are any concerns for Apple anymore.
Add to this the facts that iTunes match does not offer lossless support and iPods Touches are still stuck far behind iPod Classic in capacity, my bet is that Apple gave up on lossless music support. As most people are OK with lossy quality (and record companies certainly) then why bother with ALAC?
ALAC support will be an after thought on future i-devices. I'm sure. If supported at all.
<cynic mood OFF>
Except most digital audio is listened to with headphones on portable players and in the case of the iPod a lot of people never upgrade from the stock devices.
I can tell a 128 bitrate MP3 no matter what speakers are in use. I have since the Napster days of the late 90's.
Lossless is not worth the extra cost and space and shortened battery life if sound quality is your number 1 concern.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16295
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45644
http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/gb/
http://www.lincomatic.com/mp3/mp3quality.html
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=23355
The best is just to rip a CD to lossless and to lossy using lame at V0 or ACC at 256 and perform your own ABX tests just like in the first link posted. See for yourself.
Forget About Compression...
...How come video resolution keeps going up, but we're still stuck at 16bit unsigned @ 44,100 Hz? I know most people can't hear above 20K, but there's likely something to be gained in dynamic range/frequency band resolution?
...How come video resolution keeps going up, but we're still stuck at 16bit unsigned @ 44,100 Hz? I know most people can't hear above 20K, but there's likely something to be gained in dynamic range/frequency band resolution?
Good question. Hopefully in a few years time the iTunes Store will offer better than CD quality for download. After all, most if not all Intel Macs have 96 kHz/24 bit capable outputs.