Apple Lossless becomes open source.

[gowiththeflow]

I've just read that this week Apple have announced that their ALAC lossless compression audio format, is now available to use on an open source licence.

If I read it correctly, this free's up the ability of third party's to include the codec in their equipment and to distribute media files using the ALAC format.

One wonders if this is in preparation for Apple to start making ALAC files available via its iTunes store?

.

 

[John Duncan]

Interesting. See, I told you it would become the de facto standard... :-D

 

[manicm]

Bits are bits and all that, but Apple Lossless still sounds the pits compared to any other lossless format.

 

[John Duncan]

Well since it's open source, now you can go in and make it sound better

 

[manicm]

Nah, FLAC has done the work for me.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Bits are bits and all that, but Apple Lossless still sounds the pits compared to any other lossless format.

I'm a betting man. I'll give you £100 that in a blind test you couldn't pick the difference.

Talking about betting, don't forget the biggest race in the known universe is in Tuesday :dance:

 

[John Duncan]

 

[altruistic.lemon]

? Traditionally it's a chicken and champagne breakfast for the Melbourne Cup. Don't think popcorn comes into it.

 

[gowiththeflow]

Bits are bits and all that, but Apple Lossless still sounds the pits compared to any other lossless format.

Given the same bit depth and sample rate (e.g. 16/44.1) there shouldn't be any difference in sound quality. Encoding the same track to either format, will end up with identical or near identical results when decompressed.

From what I understand, much or the difference between these different lossless formats is down to whether the algorithms are optimized for compression ratio, compression speed, or decompression speed.

There's more likelyhood of a difference in sound quality caused by the DAC analogue output, other equipment in the audio chain, or by the source material itself.

.

 

[Anonymous]

Bits are bits and all that, but Apple Lossless still sounds the pits compared to any other lossless format.

Given the same bit depth and sample rate (e.g. 16/44.1) there shouldn't be any difference in sound quality. Encoding the same track to either format, will end up with identical or near identical results when decompressed.

From what I understand, much or the difference between these different lossless formats is down to whether the algorithms are optimized for compression ratio, compression speed, or decompression speed.

There's more likelyhood of a difference in sound quality caused by the DAC analogue output, other equipment in the audio chain, or by the source material itself.

.

There will be zero actual difference. The ALAC or FLAC file isn't the file that is played. It is uncompressed and played as PCM. And with lossless codecs such as these, the PCM is identical to the original WAV.

Any difference in sound would be to do with a faulty piece of software. Which is unlikely. It's far more likely a difference in the anticipated sound. Just like on another thread, a test that Steve_1979 did (his friend preferred the files he thought were the best).

 

[John Duncan]

Agreed, pretty much, though i defend anybody's right to prefer flac, obv

I think the software may be the key, since anything that played lossless that wasn't apple kit was using a third party reverse engineered decoder until last Thursday.

I do expect to see ALAC replacing FLAC on most downloading sites shortly though, since it will obviate questions like 'ok i have some flac, now how do i play it?!?!'

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed, pretty much, though i defend anybody's right to prefer flac, obv

Well "FLAC" rolls off the tongue more nicely

I do expect to see ALAC replacing FLAC on most downloading sites shortly though, since it will obviate questions like 'ok i have some flac, now how do i play it?!?!'

I doubt it. Most streamers play FLAC natively. I'm not sure that's the case for ALAC.

I can't see me ever using ALAC.

 

[chebby]

I can't see me ever using ALAC.

Alas...

 

[steve_1979]

Bits are bits and all that, but Apple Lossless still sounds the pits compared to any other lossless format.

Could you please cite your source for this information.

Or alternatively if you came to this conclusion yourself could you explain the method you used for the tests. Was it a 'fair and unbiased blind' scientific test (such as an ABX test using Foobar) or did you know which file you were listening to when you judged them?

 

[John Duncan]

Most streamers play FLAC natively. I'm not sure that's the case for ALAC.

You're right, they don't. I'd suggest, though, that this is because it wasn't until last week licensable from Apple at any cost, and if a manufacturer wanted to provide ALAC support they had to use the hooky reverse-engineered library, which I'm surprised never attracted the attention of the Cupertino legal department.

How many streamer makers do you think are working feverishly this weekend to get that codec into a firmware update for their players? And who will now be delighted to see all their players (or the ones that matter) supporting one format, instead of having to maintain two; one for their portable player and one for (waggles fingers) "serious listening"?

I get that your entire listening chain (whether it be Squeezebox or Android phone) supports FLAC natively, but I put it to you that you are the exception rather than the rule, as 300 million iPod and 100 million iPhone users will attest. No doubt Apple (and the streamer manufacturers themselves) will use this as marketing spiel, and you know as well as I do that 1) you can do the same thing with your workflow and 2) 99% of people don't really care, but I also put it to you that the man in the street will actually 'get' what apple lossless is; "the best quality you can get in iTunes" (as opposed to FLAC being "the best quality you can get that won't play in the media player that came installed on your PC or Mac, and will never, ever play on your iPod"). It's this final point that will drive its acceptance as the default lossless audio format.

Of course, if I'm wrong, so what...? ;-)

 

[John Duncan]

Bits are bits and all that, but Apple Lossless still sounds the pits compared to any other lossless format.

Could you please cite your source for this information.

Or alternatively if you came to this conclusion yourself could you explain the method you used for the tests. Was it a 'fair and unbiased blind' scientific test (such as an ABX test using Foobar) or did you know which file you were listening to when you judged them?

It's just his opinion. They're allowed here, you know.

 

[Anonymous]

...as opposed to FLAC being "the best quality you can get that won't play in the media player that came installed on your PC or Mac, and will never, ever play on your iPod"). It's this final point that will drive its acceptance as the default lossless audio format.

Of course, if I'm wrong, so what...? ;-)

I had flacs playing on my better halfs iPod. I installed Rockbox firmware

A much more powerful experience, but she didn't like the look of it, so I changed it back

Ah well.

 

[John Duncan]

...as opposed to FLAC being "the best quality you can get that won't play in the media player that came installed on your PC or Mac, and will never, ever play on your iPod"). It's this final point that will drive its acceptance as the default lossless audio format.

Of course, if I'm wrong, so what...? ;-)

I had flacs playing on my better halfs iPod. I installed Rockbox firmware

OK, OK, will never ever play on your unjailbroken iPod...:-D

 

[steve_1979]

It's just his opinion. They're allowed here, you know.

To say that I prefer Mozart to Beethoven would be an opinion. But to say that ALAC sounds worse than FLAC is a statement and as such it would have more credibility if it could be backed up by some sort of scientific evidence.

I'm not trying to be awkward or argumentative, just curious as to the truth.

 

[iemslie]

This is an interesting development.

I'm hoping that this will bring more attention to lossless compression from the man in the street and lead to greater availability of lossless downloads, especially from the record publishers (at sensible prices!), as opposed to specialist websites.

Can't say I'm bothered whether ALAC becomes the standard or not, doesn't really matter as long as I can play the files and don't have to install iTunes to obtain them.

Of course, what I'd really like to see is native support of FLAC in Windows. If MS were to do this I suspect ALAC would be dead in the water.

Cheers

 

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting development.

I'm hoping that this will bring more attention to lossless compression from the man in the street and lead to greater availability of lossless downloads, especially from the record publishers (at sensible prices!), as opposed to specialist websites.

Can't say I'm bothered whether ALAC becomes the standard or not, doesn't really matter as long as I can play the files and don't have to install iTunes to obtain them.

Of course, what I'd really like to see is native support of FLAC in Windows. If MS were to do this I suspect ALAC would be dead in the water.

Cheers

Good post. Totally agree.

 

[gowiththeflow]

Of course, what I'd really like to see is native support of FLAC in Windows. If MS were to do this I suspect ALAC would be dead in the water.

The thing is, the FLAC download market is currently miniscule and 99% of the world and his grandmother have never heard of it. It's popularity amonst audiophiles is a result of its adoption on streaming devices, due to the open licence. That may now change.

With Apple holding two thirds of the market for all music sales (CD, Vinyl and downloads) and accounting for sales of 80% of all portable digital music devices ever made, ALAC is in quite a strong place in terms of potential markets.

I think John's assessment on page 1 is correct. There will be quite a few manufacturers of streaming devices rushing to get ALAC support onto their spec. lists.

I'm neither for or against. This is just the way it is.

.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course, what I'd really like to see is native support of FLAC in Windows. If MS were to do this I suspect ALAC would be dead in the water.

The thing is, the FLAC download market is currently miniscule and 99% of the world and his grandmother have never heard of it. It's popularity amonst audiophiles is a result of its adoption on streaming devices, due to the open licence. That may now change.

With Apple holding two thirds of the market for all music sales (CD, Vinyl and downloads) and accounting for sales of 80% of all portable digital music devices ever made, ALAC is in quite a strong place in terms of potential markets.

I think John's assessment on page 1 is correct. There will be quite a few manufacturers of streaming devices rushing to get ALAC support onto their spec. lists.

I'm neither for or against. This is just the way it is.

.

It's amazing really. I had an mp3 player way before Apple got into the game, and I've never had an iPod of my own. Apple seem to have innovated nothing, but copied and made globally popular quite many things.

Like a mini version of Japan many years ago.

I don't mean that in any negative way, but it strikes me as amazing how design aesthetics has led the way, rather than technological improvement.

Maybe I'm just too much of a geek to understand.

 

[MajorFubar]

Apple seem to have innovated nothing, but copied and made globally popular quite many things.

That's often the way it goes. Bill Gates and PCs are often credited with inventing popular-computing in the early 1990s with Windows 3.1, but that sticks in the throat of those of us who cut our computing teeth not on Windows and IBM PC clones but on C64s, ZX Spectrums, BBC Bs and Amstrad CPCs almost a decade earlier.

The present has a habit of blurring history.

 

[chebby]

It's amazing really. I had an mp3 player way before Apple got into the game...

Never heard any complaints about all those competing record player manufacturers who all "got into the game" or competing CD player manufacturers or cassette deck manufacturers...etc.

What's so bad/shocking/immoral/wrong about Apple (or anyone else) making mp3 players?

... and I've never had an iPod of my own. Apple seem to have innovated nothing, but copied and made globally popular quite many things.

Just the same as any PC manufacturer "copied and made globally popular" PCs.

Like a mini version of Japan many years ago.

I don't mean that in any negative way...

You wouldn't have written it if you hadn't meant it negatively.

FWIW Japan has innovated more than virtually any other nation in the last 150 years and continues to do so.

... but it strikes me as amazing how design aesthetics has led the way, rather than technological improvement.

Good!

What on Earth is wrong with our day-to-day technology looking and feeling great and being a delight to look at as well as to use?