Sidebar Sidebar
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

24bit Audio?

BlackMangoTree said:
Because the vasty majority simply can't tell under any real world listening.
Click to expand...
I really wonder.

The Lord Of The Rings "The Complete Recordings" soundtracks come with an additional Audio-DVD that holds the same soundtrack but in 24bit surround sound.

Even if I "only" use my MacBook Pro (which supports 24bit Audio from DVD) and listen to it with my Audio-Technica A-700 headphones the difference between the CD version and the Audio-DVD is like day and night. Literally. So much better on DVD.
I do not believe that the majority of people would not notice the difference.


I can only think that people did not have a chance to hear their favorite tracks in 24bit.
Or even bothered to try.
 
LoganT said:
I'm not sure internet speed is the reason Apple hasn't offered Apple Lossless yet. For sake of argument let's say the average size of an Apple Lossless file is

40 MB (it's probably less than that) and let's say the number of songs on a album is 20 songs.

That's 800 MBs. People download HD movies and HD TV shows that are way bigger than that and they only enjoy those once.
Click to expand...

The reasons are file size and battery life. Downloading an album is one thing. When you sync it to your iPod, that takes 3 times longer compared to AAC 256 KBit and 6 times longer compared to AAC 128KBit. And when your iPod plays music, a huge percentage of the energy used is for reading the music from the disc or flash drive. So your batteries will be empty a lot quicker playing ALAC, no matter how little energy the decoding takes.
 
gnasher729 said:
The reasons are file size and battery life. Downloading an album is one thing. When you sync it to your iPod, that takes 3 times longer compared to AAC 256 KBit and 6 times longer compared to AAC 128KBit. And when your iPod plays music, a huge percentage of the energy used is for reading the music from the disc or flash drive. So your batteries will be empty a lot quicker playing ALAC, no matter how little energy the decoding takes.
Click to expand...

In my experience with ALAC on an iPod Touch, the battery life was never an issue. Not that I tried playing music all day but in my case, listening to the iPod on the way to work, on my break and on the way home, the battery was a non-issue.
 
At this moment ALAC would be good on a iMac or a Mac Book Pro not really for a iPod Touch or iPhone but not sure for iPad because I just tested it and wow it took a lot of space. Also if you are wondering if I notice any sound difference, that is a yes and all depends how old the recording is. I just wish the free iCloud was more than 5GB, kind of hard to afford anything during this economy:( I just wanted to also add that I doubt it would make so much difference ALAC audio quality on smaller speakers or even on smaller head phones. So at this moment ALAC would be great on iMacs and Mac Book Pros until iPod Touch or any other Apple portable devices get a bigger hard drive or they add streaming to iCloud.
 
ranReloaded said:
...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?
Click to expand...

Threshold of human hearing is 12Hz to 20,000Hz, so there is nothing to be gained fidelity wise in the sample rate department (usually if variation between individuals is mentioned, that variation is how well individuals can hear between those two thresholds).

I'm not entirely sure about 24bit + audio resolutions, but I assume the logic is similar.

The only real benefit is for audio engineers. Apparently things like sound aliasing when effects are applied to waveforms can be minimalized by up-converting (or simply recording) at a high sample rate, then down-converting to 44.1 kHz. Increased audio resolution will improve the dynamic range of the sounds, but I'm not sure how much is realistically gained from that boost.

Also, the quickest way to prove you can appreciate high fidelity music is to post double-blind test results that show you can differentiate between various bitrates at a 95% confidence level. There's no reason for anyone to believe you can, no matter how flowery you compare the 'metallic tin' of mp3 against the 'vibrant fullness' of your vinyl recordings, uncompressed wave, or whatever.

I don't doubt some of you could have gifted ears and great equipment, I just anecdotally find those claiming to be the staunchest audiophiles are some of the most arrogant dilettantes.
 
Last edited:
wikus said:
Android's market share has long surpassed that of iOS. I'd say theres little debate over which open source format will have more success.
Click to expand...
Bzzz. Wrong. iOS has a 54% lead on Android. Thanks for playing.

wikus said:
I dont know why anyone would convert to ALAC when (currently) only iTunes has ALAC support.

What SHOULD happen is apple adopts FLAC.
Click to expand...

Yup, that sounds like a good idea. Adopt a format that offers no increase in fidelity or filesize, but takes more processing power (and therefore leads to shorter battery life). I can't understand why they haven't done that :rolleyes:

Prodo123 said:
Android may have more market share ... <snip>
Click to expand...
Except they don't. iOS is killing Android. The only metric where Android ahead is in the ridiculously-useless metric of "smartphone OS share".

firestarter said:
All we need now is for Apple to change that annoying option in iTunes that offers 128kbps re-compression to AAC.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the right-click option of "Save AAC version?" The settings for that are hidden a bit, but you can change that. Go to Preferences->General->Import Settings (near the "When you insert a CD" dropdown). The settings saved there are what is used for the right click "Save xxx version". You can change between formats, as well as change the settings for the format.

Swift said:
Why doesn't Apple support FLAC? I imagine the key is in the GNU license. If they accepted FLAC, all of iTunes would belong to the Free Software Foundation, no?
Click to expand...

THIS is huge, and a very good point. Does anyone have a definite answer on this? I imagine it's a big part of the reason.

antic said:
It's a fact that sooner or later Android devices will outnumber IOS devices.
Click to expand...

Want to make a bet? Apple is far, far in the lead. And they just introduced a free version of the iPhone. My money is on the gulf widening, with Apple pulling into an even more dominant position.



the8thark said:
Agreed. And +1 for a good comment from you. That's rare indeed.
Click to expand...

Totally, utterly uncalled for. Do you walk into someone's house and say such rude things? I imagine not. It's amazing how a little bit of internet anonymity makes people tough guys all of a sudden.

Andrew*Debbie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't count it out as being the new standard. iOS has managed to kill Flash, and that was an installed user base orders of magnitude larger than the small audiophile market that lossless formats are aimed at.
 
Last edited:
King Alekay said:
Does anybody know if I would be able to hear the difference between lossy and lossless music on a pair of Incase Sonic headphones?
Click to expand...

Possibly. It depends on the music, your ears and the audio system the headphones are connected to.

Prodo123 said:
That's the problem; people can't hear the difference between MP3 and lossless audio because their equipment is crappy. They sound equally bad, but if you're a careful listener, then you can tell slight differences.
Click to expand...


Yes. The audio hardware built into most computers is terrible. Worse than the junk Apple earbuds. The typical DAC is a < $1.00 part. 1st concern for computer audio is cost and size. Sound quality is way down the list.


I listen to music using an external DIY DAC and Headphone amp connected to an older pair of Sennheiser HD-580 headphones.

By far the biggest, easily audible improvement is the external DAC. The PCM2702 DAC chip alone (now obsolete) cost about $15 in large quantities. The DAC cost me about $50 to build and the headphone amp cost me about $300 in parts. Far more than I spent on the headphones.

With all this gear, I can usually hear the difference between 256kbit AAC and ALAC. Usually.





Kits weren't available when I built mine, but they are now. The design is obsolete though. Still, I doubt you can do much better for $50.

http://glassjaraudio.com/product.sc...F3AF143.qscstrfrnt05?productId=6&categoryId=4
 
Dreamail said:
I really wonder.

The Lord Of The Rings "The Complete Recordings" soundtracks come with an additional Audio-DVD that holds the same soundtrack but in 24bit surround sound.

Even if I "only" use my MacBook Pro (which supports 24bit Audio from DVD) and listen to it with my Audio-Technica A-700 headphones the difference between the CD version and the Audio-DVD is like day and night. Literally. So much better on DVD.
I do not believe that the majority of people would not notice the difference.


I can only think that people did not have a chance to hear their favorite tracks in 24bit.
Or even bothered to try.
Click to expand...

An excellent video to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Thats not a fair test, we don't know how either were mastered ect... Rip the dvd to say aac 256 vbr and then do a blind listening test (ABX) to get a real world result.

When listening to music the difference between 16 and 24bit is irrelevant.

There is a thread here witch is a good read http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=49843
 
Last edited:
wikus said:
And apple does not support the more popular FLAC format, or any of the other open source formats (OGG?). Cowon (iAudio) for example supports a lot of the formats. Their J3 and S9 mp3 players completely trounce any iPod ever released.
Click to expand...

Which is why consumers are choosing their players, while abandoning iPods in droves.

No, wait. In fact, no one wants the crap iRiver pushes to the marketplace. Ogg? Who the hell cares about that?
 
KnightWRX said:
Good news for widespread support, but one wonders why Apple didn't just go with FLAC in the first place.
Click to expand...

Because it's Apple. When have you ever known them to use standard... well, standards?

If it were up to them we'd all be using ADC. Which, for the record, would not be a bad thing.
 
batchtaster said:
As with most things Apple, presumably because they thought they could do better. They don't tend to do anything that they don't think is an improvement on something that already exists. If I recall correctly, isn't ALAC about half the file size?
Click to expand...
They're about half the file size (well, more like 60% usually) of uncompressed WAV/AIFF files yes, but so are FLAC. I've done quite a bit of converting from FLAC to ALAC and I'd say they average out to about the same amount of compression. Sometimes FLAC wins, sometimes ALAC wins, but there's not much in it.

So yeah I'm totally happy to use ALAC, but I do wonder why they never supported FLAC. I'm guessing something to do with providing hardware playback in their devices?

----------
sinsin07 said:
FLAC Player iOS Universal
Click to expand...
Okay so yes you can get a FLAC player, but I guess arn should've said "native support". You can't playback FLAC files from your iTunes Library through the iPod, nor will it playback natively through the hardware.
 
BlackMangoTree said:
Thats not a fair test, we don't know how either were mastered ect... Rip the dvd to say aac 256 vbr and then do a blind listening test (ABX) to get a real world result.
Click to expand...
I"d love to try. Do you know of a way to do this? iTunes does not recognize the Audio-DVD, it does not support 24bit audio, so I cannot rip it with iTunes. Which other software reads 24bit Audio-DVDs and can convert to 256vbr AAC that iTunes recognizes? Any tip appreciated.

And thanks for the link.
 
bpaluzzi said:
Bzzz. Wrong. iOS has a 54% lead on Android. Thanks for playing.
...
Except they don't. iOS is killing Android. The only metric where Android ahead is in the ridiculously-useless metric of "smartphone OS share".
Click to expand...
I still don't understand this I'm afraid. How can Android be ahead of iOS in smartphone OS, but iOS is 54% *ahead* of Android... In what comparison?
 
Dreamail said:
I"d love to try. Do you know of a way to do this? iTunes does not recognize the Audio-DVD, it does not support 24bit audio, so I cannot rip it with iTunes. Which other software reads 24bit Audio-DVDs and can convert to 256vbr AAC that iTunes recognizes? Any tip appreciated.

And thanks for the link.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. i didn't think of that ripping it might be a problem, i'll have to a have a look to see if there is anything that can do it.

Here is a excellent video to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

EDIT: There are some solutions which seem to be Windows only http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/How-Rip-DVD-Audio-DVD-Video-Audio-And-HDAD-Discs
 
jowie said:
I still don't understand this I'm afraid. How can Android be ahead of iOS in smartphone OS, but iOS is 54% *ahead* of Android... In what comparison?
Click to expand...

iOS and Android are mobile operating systems, not smartphone operating systems.

Saying Android is the marketshare leader in smartphones is as useless as saying "OS X is the marketshare leader in all-in-one desktop devices". So what?

There are 54% more iOS devices than Android devices. That's the number that matters, as the ability to "make a call" or "not make a call" on a device has very little impact on the device's place in the ecosystem.
 
bpaluzzi said:
Are you talking about the right-click option of "Save AAC version?" The settings for that are hidden a bit, but you can change that. Go to Preferences->General->Import Settings (near the "When you insert a CD" dropdown). The settings saved there are what is used for the right click "Save xxx version". You can change between formats, as well as change the settings for the format.
Click to expand...
No, I think he's talking about the option to "Convert higher bit rate songs to 128kbps AAC" in the iPod settings. They should really have an option for 256kbps instead, or at least as well as, these days. Otherwise it takes an age recompressing all the stuff that was bought from the iTunes Store. It's an old legacy thing that they introduced with the iPod shuffle, and then people found it useful for the smaller-capacity iPods so they made it available to all. Someone wrote an interesting blog post about it here: http://www.ptg-global.com/craigsblog/?p=57

----------
bpaluzzi said:
There are 54% more iOS devices than Android devices. That's the number that matters, as the ability to "make a call" or "not make a call" on a device has very little impact on the device's place in the ecosystem.
Click to expand...
Ahhh okay... One includes the iPod touch, the other one doesn't?
 
buklau said:
also, the quickest way to prove you can appreciate high fidelity music is to post double-blind test results that show you can differentiate between various bitrates at a 95% confidence level. There's no reason for anyone to believe you can, no matter how flowery you compare the 'metallic tin' of mp3 against the 'vibrant fullness' of your vinyl recordings, uncompressed wave, or whatever.

I don't doubt some of you could have gifted ears and great equipment, i just anecdotally find those claiming to be the staunchest audiophiles are some of the most arrogant dilettantes.
Click to expand...

qft!
 
jowie said:
No, I think he's talking about the option to "Convert higher bit rate songs to 128kbps AAC" in the iPod settings. They should really have an option for 256kbps instead, or at least as well as, these days. Otherwise it takes an age recompressing all the stuff that was bought from the iTunes Store. It's an old legacy thing that they introduced with the iPod shuffle, and then people found it useful for the smaller-capacity iPods so they made it available to all. Someone wrote an interesting blog post about it here: http://www.ptg-global.com/craigsblog/?p=57
Click to expand...


Ahh, gotcha. That makes sense.

jowie said:
Ahhh okay... One includes the iPod touch, the other one doesn't?
Click to expand...

iPod Touch + iPad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back