 |
 |
FLAC vs Apple Lossless
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Awesome. They completely didn't measure individual song encoding times for Apple Lossless. How annoying.
|
|
-- Devin Lane, Cocoa Programmer
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
FLAC seems nice. Too bad there aren't too many portable music players that support it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: CA, USA & Bangkok, Thailand
Status:
Offline
|
|
too many numbers and no pictures/graphs.
... and no words on how each format sounds.
|
|
^_^
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by ae77:
... and no words on how each format sounds.
Well, since they're all lossless codecs, I'd expect them all to sound pretty much the same as the original uncompressed file.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: behind an iBook
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Devin Lane:
Awesome. They completely didn't measure individual song encoding times for Apple Lossless. How annoying.
Did you read why?
The machine I used for encoding the test files is a PII-333 with 256 megs of RAM, running Windows NT 4.0 SP5. Unfortunately, Windows is the lowest-common-denominator platform for all the encoders. Apple Lossless was tested on a newer machine (P4-2.4GHz Windows 2000); only the overall encoding and decoding times are shown, and the times are scaled to the PII-333 by multiplying by the ratio of flac times on the PII to P4.
So they didn't perform all of the tests on the same machine, but it still gives you a good idea.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ah, I see. Sorry about that.
|
|
-- Devin Lane, Cocoa Programmer
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why didn't he just use the 2.4 GHz Pentium for all the tests?? :/
|
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by voodoo:
Why didn't he just use the 2.4 GHz Pentium for all the tests?? :/
I'm pretty sure iTunes can't run on the older machine.
So he would have had to redo all of the tests on the newer machine, which would have been a pain.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Turias:
I'm pretty sure iTunes can't run on the older machine.
So he would have had to redo all of the tests on the newer machine, which would have been a pain.
Yeah, but at the same time, the fact that he's basically guestimating the results for Apple Lossless makes these tests really not that good for comparing FLAC and Apple Lossless.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
What a worthless article... "here's how long these encoders take to encode and decode songs." And a listing of ratios for every protocol, by song.
Who would care about this? Does Joe user really care about 20 seconds difference in time for a specific codec, given a machine? How much more important is "it plays on my iPod?"
A lossless codec is pretty much a lossless codec -- they should all sound identical. So FLAC has "open source" and "linux support" going for it, and ALE has "it plays on the iPod and in iTunes" and "It supports Fairplay so Apple could do interesting things with it" on its side.
A listing of compression ratios and encoding time... geez sometimes Linux geeks just don't get it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus  Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, MN, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by CatOne:
A lossless codec is pretty much a lossless codec
In this case I agree, but in general I do not. Ratio can become an issue if one were to ever come out that created much smaller files than the others.
Although it seems more likely that the portable audio players will just get bigger and hold these larger files rather than making the files smaller. Getting lossess smaller than that is surely no easy task.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: behind an iBook
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by CatOne:
What a worthless article... "here's how long these encoders take to encode and decode songs." And a listing of ratios for every protocol, by song.
Who would care about this? Does Joe user really care about 20 seconds difference in time for a specific codec, given a machine? How much more important is "it plays on my iPod?"
A lossless codec is pretty much a lossless codec -- they should all sound identical. So FLAC has "open source" and "linux support" going for it, and ALE has "it plays on the iPod and in iTunes" and "It supports Fairplay so Apple could do interesting things with it" on its side.
A listing of compression ratios and encoding time... geez sometimes Linux geeks just don't get it.
Actually there are many people that care about this. I am one of them. Considering I how often I use lossless encoding it's very informative to see what is quicker and what yields smaller files.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
