Apple lossless encoder thread (new in iTunes4.5)

[iamnotmad]

Hi all, this is very interesting. Does anyone have any info, is this thier own creation or come from FLAC or one of the others? I'd love to be able to d/l songs from ITMS in a lossless format, in the future perhaps.

Please post any info you have on ALE (apple lossless encoder)
Thanks!

[Todd Madson]

I took a mastered track I finished (just guitar, synths, keyboards
and drums) that was a little over a minute or two long.

I encoded it with lossless and noted the kbps rating was 996 or 998.
The original file was 1444 kbps. The file was under two megs (!)

I put on my studio cans (high-end annoyingly large expensive Sony
studio monitoring headphones) and had a very hard time telling any
kind of substantive difference.

I didn't really get a chance to do a massively critical test but
so far I'm very impressed.

The only downside is it apparently is supported on the new iPods
(3rd generation) and minis but not the originals. Sigh.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Todd Madson:

I put on my studio cans (high-end annoyingly large expensive Sony
studio monitoring headphones) and had a very hard time telling any
kind of substantive difference.


Technically, there should be no difference at all. Saying you had a very hard time telling any difference would mean that there *could* have been a difference at which point it wouldn't be a lossless encoding as the name suggests it to be.

Lossless means just that...no loss in data.

[iamnotmad]

Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the info. Shouldn't lossless mean lossless? Why did the kbps drop and were you able to tell *any* difference really? Have you tried FLAC or Monkey Audio in the past?
Thanks again.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Technically, there should be no difference at all. Saying you had a very hard time telling any difference would mean that there *could* have been a difference at which point it wouldn't be a lossless encoding as the name suggests it to be.

Lossless means just that...no loss in data.

no, lossless in this case means no loss in (perceived) quality.

-r.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
no, lossless in this case means no loss in (perceived) quality.

-r.

No...I'm pretty sure it's no loss in data.

It's compressed but the data is still there...kinda like a stuffit or zip file. MP3s and AAC actually remove bits of data to make files smaller...these bits are unrecoverable and therefore data is lost.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted at http://www.apple.com/itunes/:
Use the new lossless encoder to import music from CDs and achieve sound quality indistinguishable from the original, at about half the original file size. Plays in iTunes and on iPod.

nah, it's the audio.

-r.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
you're obviously losing date if the file is half the size. it's the quality of the audio which is "lossless."

-r.

No...the data is merely compressed.

When you stuff or zip a file and the file becomes half the size, have you lost any data? Nope. You can decompress it back into it's original self. Not so with MP3s or AAC.

[mitchell_pgh]

CD --> MP3 --> CD
If you compared the two CDs, they would be different.

CD --> Apple Lossless Codec --> CD
There should be zero difference in the CD

(that being said, there may be some technical changes to the CD, but you get my point)

[mitchell_pgh]

If Apple is calling this a lossless encoder and it's not, then that's total BS.

[stuffedmonkey]

I believe that by definition that the origionial uncompressed file would be recoverable - as in that no bits would be deleted. That does not necessarily mean that there would be no difference in playback - If the playback codec was not tweaked properly it could sound different then the codec that plays the origional .aiff file.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by stuffedmonkey:
I believe that by definition that the origionial uncompressed file would be recoverable - as in that no bits would be deleted. That does not necessarily mean that there would be no difference in playback - If the playback codec was not tweaked properly it could sound different then the codec that plays the origional .aiff file.

Oh...for sure...if a computer isn't fast enough to decompress the file and play it, then you'll get hiccups or sound distortions.

Contrary to what rjenkinson has said earlier (and Apple if you look at it from a certain perspective), perceived quality *could* be worse than its original uncompressed form since more computing power is needed to play it but there is absolutely no loss in data.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
If Apple is calling this a lossless encoder and it's not, then that's total BS.

Apple wouldn't do that.

This is pretty much guaranteed to be a lossless format and that means 'no loss in data', period.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by stuffedmonkey:
I believe that by definition that the origionial uncompressed file would be recoverable - as in that no bits would be deleted. That does not necessarily mean that there would be no difference in playback - If the playback codec was not tweaked properly it could sound different then the codec that plays the origional .aiff file. That would only be the case if they royally ****ed it up.

This isn't some fickle psycho-acoustic data reduction crap, this is plain file compression.

It would probably be harder to mess it up than to do it right.

-s*

[iamnotmad]

I aggree, "lossless" means NO DATA LOSS, not no percieved loss in audio quality. That would be rediculous. To many, aac128 could be considered lossless if the latter were the case.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That would only be the case if they royally ****ed it up.

This isn't some fickle psycho-acoustic data reduction crap, this is plain file compression.

It would probably be harder to mess it up than to do it right.

-s* You will find enough "audiophiles" who can clearly hear the difference.

[threestain]

true, and how many of them understand what such lossless encoding actually means. I didn't until I covered it in my uni course (I thought it was magic before). Bear in mind I do medicine so compression technologies are high on the list of priorities :)

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Developer:
You will find enough "audiophiles" who can clearly hear the difference.

Not really...all things equal and providing the computer is able to decompress a lossless file fast enough, if an audiophile hooked his/her Mac up to the same high fidelity speakers setup he/she normally uses to listen to his/her CD music and played a lossless format, they would not hear any difference.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the info. Shouldn't lossless mean lossless? Why did the kbps drop and were you able to tell *any* difference really?
Keep in mind, kbps is not a measure of quality; it is only a measure of file size. What makes one codec "higher-quality" than another is its ability to sound good at lower bitrates.

The kbps dropped because the file got smaller. That's all. You could achieve similar results by running the original AIFF through gzip; in fact, what Apple is doing with its codec is probably not much different from exactly this.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:
You will find enough "audiophiles" who can clearly hear the difference. Not on a format that is by definition identical.

On something like mp3, there will obviously be tons of people who can tell the difference to the source.

It's pretty apparent.

-s*

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Keep in mind, kbps is not a measure of quality; it is only a measure of file size. What makes one codec "higher-quality" than another is its ability to sound good at lower bitrates.

The kbps dropped because the file got smaller. That's all. You could achieve similar results by running the original AIFF through gzip; in fact, what Apple is doing with its codec is probably not much different from exactly this.

But the bitrate shouldn't change - not one bit. Yes the file is compressed, but that has no impact on the sound. Bitrate is a measure of sound quality (or density, the number of bits per second required to reproduce the sound, right?), and that has no meaning to a compressed file. That's like saying "Stairway to Heaven is 8:03 minutes long at 128kbs, but only 5:40 at 96kbs!"

In other words, if the song is simply compressed and no loss occurs, all details of the sound file (except compressed filesize, obviously, but uncompressed size must be the same to the last bit) must remain unchanged, including bitrate, length, volume, channels, etc, unless Apple has decided to remove unnecessary elements such as out-of-range frequencies, which would nonetheless qualify this as lossy compression.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Not on a format that is by definition identical.Even then. The "audiophiles" will be able to hear the difference:

"The new Apple Lossless Codec is a fantastic codec, however quiet classic music sounds a little bit cramped and lacks dynamics compared to the original. All tests were performed on $30,000 equipment with golden wires."

Wait for it. You're going to read it.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by absmiths:
But the bitrate shouldn't change - not one bit. Yes the file is compressed, but that has no impact on the sound. Bitrate is a measure of sound quality (or density, the number of bits per second required to reproduce the sound, right?), and that has no meaning to a compressed file. That's like saying "Stairway to Heaven is 8:03 minutes long at 128kbs, but only 5:40 at 96kbs!"

In other words, if the song is simply compressed and no loss occurs, all details of the sound file (except compressed filesize, obviously, but uncompressed size must be the same to the last bit) must remain unchanged, including bitrate, length, volume, channels, etc, unless Apple has decided to remove unnecessary elements such as out-of-range frequencies, which would nonetheless qualify this as lossy compression.

Why pretend like you know what you're talking about. This is precisely why I hate this forum. Too many self-proclaimed experts around here.

I think I lose an iq point everytime I click on a thread on MacNN. :(

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Not on a format that is by definition identical.

On something like mp3, there will obviously be tons of people who can tell the difference to the source.

It's pretty apparent.

-s*

And you have to consider the psychology of it as well. There will always be people who believe that their old scratchy LPs are superior to even uncompressed digital formats. It is difficult for a human to compare two recordings side-by-side because no sound (or thing, period) will be experienced and sensed in the same way twice.

I am a musician and certainly a music lover, but I have what most would consider a poor audio setup. There is after all a lot more to music than the sound.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Why pretend like you know what you're talking about. This is precisely why I hate this forum. Too many self-proclaimed experts around here.

I think I lose an iq point everytime I click on a thread on MacNN. ;(

Why not substantiate your statement? I completely understand compression technologies, especially with regards to lossless and lossy techniques, and the application here seems straightforward. What specifically is your complaint? You might notice that in my original statement I pointed out that I was making an inferrence.

As to your other points, I never claimed to be an expert in sound, just one who is asking a detailed question about the original statement. As to the IQ points, judging by your post count you probably don't have too many to spare . . .

[Developer]

Originally posted by absmiths:
In other words, if the song is simply compressed and no loss occurs, all details of the sound file (except compressed filesize, obviously, but uncompressed size must be the same to the last bit) must remain unchanged, including bitrate, length, [...]. Bitrate is the number of bits per second. Since the length of the song is identical, and the size of the compressed file is lower, the bitrate must be lower as well. Simple math.

bitrate * time = size

bitrate-o * time = size-o
bitrate-c * time = size-c

size-c < size-o

bitrate-c * time < bitrate-o * time

bitrate-c < bitrate-o

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by absmiths:
And you have to consider the psychology of it as well. There will always be people who believe that their old scratchy LPs are superior to even uncompressed digital formats. It is difficult for a human to compare two recordings side-by-side because no sound (or thing, period) will be experienced and sensed in the same way twice.

I am a musician and certainly a music lover, but I have what most would consider a poor audio setup. There is after all a lot more to music than the sound.

Yeah but now we're going into a completely different subject. Psychology or human emotions aside, lossless means identical to the source. A vulcan would hear and experience the same thing listening to his CD on his computer or his Apple Lossless Encoded format on the same setup.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Developer:
Even then. The "audiophiles" will be able to hear the difference:

"The new Apple Lossless Codec is a fantastic codec, however quiet classic music sounds a little bit cramped and lacks dynamics compared to the original. All tests were performed on $30.000 equipment with golden wires."

Wait for it. You're going to read it.

Oh hehehe...I didn't realize the sarcasm in your original post. :) Yeah, for sure...some people will say that there's a slight difference. :D

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Developer:
Bitrate is the number of bits per second. Since the length of the song is identical, and the size of the compressed file is lower, the bitrate must be lower as well. Simple math.


Millenium's example was an AIFF file going through a GZIP encoder which would clearly not yield a sound file. In the case you mention, however, you seem to be saying that the result is a sound file which has a lower bitrate (less data). Doesn't that make this a lossy format? After all, an MP3 codec can transcode from 160KBS to 128KBS, but there would be data loss. Can sound data compression be considered lossless and still remove data?

[iamnotmad]

This has to be really a lossless codec, otherwise, what would be the difference really between this and any other high quality lossy compression or a really high bitrate AAC? No reason for apple to include another lossy compression codec but with file sizes a lot higher than AAC/MP3. It's not called lossless for nothin'

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by absmiths:
Millenium's example was an AIFF file going through a GZIP encoder which would clearly not yield a sound file. In the case you mention, however, you seem to be saying that the result is a sound file which has a lower bitrate (less data). Doesn't that make this a lossy format? After all, an MP3 encoder can transcode from 160KBS to 128KBS, but there would be data loss. Can sound data compression be considered lossless and still remove data?

Compression does not by definition have to throw out data.

[Developer]

Originally posted by absmiths:
Millenium's example was an AIFF file going through a GZIP encoder which would clearly not yield a sound file.Why not? Who knows, maybe the Apple Lossless files are simply zipped AIFFs.In the case you mention, however, you seem to be saying that the result is a sound file which has a lower bitrate (less data). Doesn't that make this a lossy format? After all, an MP3 codec can transcode from 160KBS to 128KBS, but there would be data loss. Can sound data compression be considered lossless and still remove data? Data compression always removes data. That's the point and definition of compression.
Lossless compression means that the original can be exactly reconstructed from the compressed data - identical to the last bit. Lossy compression means that only something that is similar to the original can be reconstructed.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
Compression does not by definition have to throw out data.

By definition, lossless compression must not throw out data, and lossy compression may. A lossless compressed object (file, sound, whatever) may be represented in a more compact format, but the uncompressed form (in this case the sound itself) would have to remain unchanged. Is this not so?

There is still something missing here. Either (1) audio compression techniques allow for removal of extraneous or redundant data, or (2) there is a misunderstanding about what this process really is (on my part and probably others'). If (1) is true, then it isn't a truly lossless format (as in zip, gzip, etc) since those algorithms make no distinction about the quality or meaning of the data, they reproduce exactly what they are fed (when decompressed).

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
Compression does not by definition have to throw out data.

Exactly...I'm not sure if my example wasn't clear but when you zip or stuff a file, you've compressed the data but in no way has data been lost. If data had been lost, compressing and decompressing would produce a corrupted file.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by absmiths:
By definition, lossless compression must not throw out data, and lossy compression may. A lossless compressed object (file, sound, whatever) may be represented in a more compact format, but the uncompressed form (in this case the sound itself) would have to remain unchanged. Is this not so?

There is still something missing here. Either (1) audio compression techniques allow for removal of extraneous or redundant data, or (2) there is a misunderstanding about what this process really is (on my part and probably others'). If (1) is true, then it isn't a truly lossless format (as in zip, gzip, etc) since those algorithms make no distinction about the quality or meaning of the data, they reproduce exactly what they are fed (when decompressed).

Originall posted by mamamia:
The term "lossless" is a term of art in the digital music world. It has a very specific definitiion: no data loss. It uses a more sophisticated algorithim to compress the data comprising the music into a smaller number of bits and bytes, but does not alter the music itself (unlike mp3 or aac). You could compress and uncompress between a lossless codec and something like aiff or .wav a thousand times, and the resulting files would be identical every time.

for instance: one can write the number 32 a number of different ways.
1) 32
2) 2^5
3) 16x2
4) 8x4
5) 4x4x2
6) 2x2x2x2x2

you can go back and forth between the number 32 and the any of the other examples a thousand times, and the results will still be the same: 32.

my point is that, unless apple is fabricating its claim that this is a lossless codec, the two files you tested would contain the exact sanme digital music information, and would therefore be identical (assuming your computer has the capability to run the codec in the first place). your statement that the music sounded "virtually indisinguishable" implies that there was some difference between the two. this is simply not possible if it is a lossless codec.

sorry for being such a pedant. just thought i'd set the record straight as we enter this brave new world of lossless audio.


If this doesn't help you, I'm not sure what will.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Developer:
Why not? Who knows, maybe the Apple Lossless files are simply zipped AIFFs.Data compression always removes data. That's the point and definition of compression.
Lossless compression means that the original can be exactly reconstructed from the compressed data - identical to the last bit. Lossy compression means that only something that is similar to the original can be reconstructed.

I meant that unless Apple invented a new sound file format which was GZIP, then a GZIP file is not a sound file. Granted they may have done that, but for the purposes of this discussion I was assuming they hadn't.

If I understand your second point, are you saying that the bitrate is reported for the compressed size, not the actual playback? This is what I was comparing it to:

file.txt <<-- 100K
file.zip <<-- 10K

Is file.txt now 10K, or 100K? The source file still has the same length, but when it is zipped it is much smaller. Can I open the file.zip in notepad? No. It must first be unzipped and the full 100K utilized by the editor.

I understand that an encoded files' length will change, but the number of bits per second utilized during playback should not change according to your last statement about reproducing the original exactly. Maybe what's confusing is that the bitrate is reported in bits per second, and time would seem to only be relevant with respect to playback.

BTW, thanks for your civil responses!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by absmiths:
But the bitrate shouldn't change - not one bit. Yes the file is compressed, but that has no impact on the sound. Bitrate is a measure of sound quality (or density, the number of bits per second required to reproduce the sound, right?), and that has no meaning to a compressed file. That's like saying "Stairway to Heaven is 8:03 minutes long at 128kbs, but only 5:40 at 96kbs!"

In other words, if the song is simply compressed and no loss occurs, all details of the sound file (except compressed filesize, obviously, but uncompressed size must be the same to the last bit) must remain unchanged, including bitrate, length, volume, channels, etc, unless Apple has decided to remove unnecessary elements such as out-of-range frequencies, which would nonetheless qualify this as lossy compression. What the hell are you talking about?

The bitrate (kbps) is the amount of data that needs to be read from the hard disk, NOT a measure of sound output quality.

If you have a smaller file due to elimination of redundancy (without reduction in quality), you have a lower bitrate. Period.

A Word document contains the exact same amount of data as a .zip file of the same document, but the .zip is smaller, and less data needs to be read from the disk when working with it.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
If this doesn't help you, I'm not sure what will.

Thank you for at least trying to be helpful. I wonder though how many IQ points you have lost since you keep making such useless statements. I will say it one last time - I understand compression. I understand how a file can be represented in many ways and still be the exact same file. My complaint is about the claim that less data over time yields the same sound, since data over time is what creates the sound. I am not talking about the file format!!

[threestain]

from my understanding of very basic lossless compression technologies, what they do is bit-run analysis. i.e. if something has a set like this 111111111 it would be converted into 1(x)9 (obviously in binary or somesuch). Essentially they look at repeats and then give the original number and the number of repeats. This gives a reason why some files can be compressed more than others.

And I think its shown beautifully by mammamia's post (via horsepoo).

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by absmiths:
Thank you for at least trying to be helpful. I wonder though how many IQ points you have lost since you keep making such useless statements. I will say it one last time - I understand compression. I understand how a file can be represented in many ways and still be the exact same file. My complaint is about the claim that less data over time yields the same sound, since data over time is what creates the sound. I am not talking about the file format!!

Geezus...because it's being decompressed on-the-fly into it's original bitrate perhaps!? Should I draw a diagram?

[MaxPower2k3]

the difference there is that [with a zipped text file] the compression is separate from the actual file, and you have to perform an extra step (extracting from the zip) to access the file. With the lossless codec, the original song and the compression are, for all intensive purposes, one thing. It's decompressed and played 'on the fly' and you never have to deal with the original, uncompressed file. THat's why they list the compressed bitrate (which is not a measure of quality; as Developer said, it's simply the filesize divided by the length of the song. ever listen to a 128kbps AAC and a 128kbps MP3? they AAC sounds better at the same bitrate).

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
What the hell are you talking about?

The bitrate (kbps) is the amount of data that needs to be read from the hard disk, NOT a measure of sound output quality.

If you have a smaller file due to elimination of redundancy (without reduction in quality), you have a lower bitrate. Period.

A Word document contains the exact same amount of data as a .zip file of the same document, but the .zip is smaller, and less data needs to be read from the disk when working with it.

Despite the incivility of your post (not unusual) I finally take your point. Your analogy is flawed however since Word may not use a zipped word document - it must first be uncompressed by a different piece of software (so Word sees the exact same source file).

I was thinking about bits per second as a measure of the data sent to the audio unit in the computer, not the amount of data read from the disk to uncompress and send to the unit. That makes more sense (and the first time in this thread that distiction has been made).

[absmiths]

Originally posted by threestain:
from my understanding of very basic lossless compression technologies, what they do is bit-run analysis. i.e. if something has a set like this 111111111 it would be converted into 1(x)9 (obviously in binary or somesuch). Essentially they look at repeats and then give the original number and the number of repeats. This gives a reason why some files can be compressed more than others.

And I think its shown beautifully by mammamia's post (via horsepoo).

This is actually called Run Length Encoding (RLE) - one of the most primitive compression techniques. I would hardly characterize horespoo's posts as useful.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Geezus...because it's being decompressed on-the-fly into it's original bitrate perhaps!? Should I draw a diagram?

If being condescending makes you feel superior than by all means go ahead - draw the diagram. One wonders why you feel so threatened by someone seeking information.

Oh well, I have better things to do with my time and this thread has outlived it's usefullness. Thanks to those who were helpful.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by absmiths:
Despite the incivility of your post (not unusual) I finally take your point. Your analogy is flawed however since Word may not use a zipped word document - it must first be uncompressed by a different piece of software (so Word sees the exact same source file).It's more along the lines of the old DiskDoubler software, that would just decompress transparently in the background, allowing users to work with the compressed files as if they were uncompressed.
Originally posted by absmiths:
I was thinking about bits per second as a measure of the data sent to the audio unit in the computer, not the amount of data read from the disk to uncompress and send to the unit. That makes more sense (and the first time in this thread that distiction has been made). :thumbsup:

I apologize for the tone of my post.

[iamnotmad]

Well cool, it seems we've reached a concensus, at least based on the little info we have from apple that this Apple Lossless Compression, is in fact lossless, and will sound the same as a cd or AIFF. Also can be converted back and forth to AIFF without any loss of data or sound quality. These are actually reasonable assumptions when one hears the terms lossless in any case.

Thanks.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by absmiths:
But the bitrate shouldn't change - not one bit.
Yes, it does.
Yes the file is compressed, but that has no impact on the sound.
Correct. Bitrate has little to nothing to do with the sound itself, believe it or not.
Bitrate is a measure of sound quality (or density, the number of bits per second required to reproduce the sound, right?), and that has no meaning to a compressed file.
No, bitrate is not a measure of sound quality. It has been mistaken for such due to the long pseudo-monopoly of the MP3 format, but it's not the case, and it breaks down quickly when you try comparing across formats.
That's like saying "Stairway to Heaven is 8:03 minutes long at 128kbs, but only 5:40 at 96kbs!"
No, it's not. Stairway to Heaven will be the same length at any bitrate, but the file will be smaller at lower bitrates. Depending on the codecs you use, the audio contained in the smaller file may also be lower-quality, but it might not.
In other words, if the song is simply compressed and no loss occurs, all details of the sound file (except compressed filesize, obviously, but uncompressed size must be the same to the last bit) must remain unchanged, including bitrate, length, volume, channels, etc, unless Apple has decided to remove unnecessary elements such as out-of-range frequencies, which would nonetheless qualify this as lossy compression.
Almost correct. The bitrate is not a property of the audio; it is only a property of the stream that contains it. When you compress the audio, as long as it is done in a lossless manner, the bitrate drops. The audio stream must be uncompressed before it can be played, and in its raw PCM form it actually is identical to the uncompressed form. What iTunes is giving you is the bitrate of the compressed stream, not the uncompressed stream.

[C.J. Moof]

Here's my question: If this is lossess, wouldn't that mean that if you took a file from a CD, ripped it to Apple Lossless, then put it back out as AIFF, your starting and ending AIFFs will be identical?

If the files are identical, they'll have the same md5 checksum. But they don't.

I took a CD, ripped a file into iTunes using Apple Lossless. Then I changed my default encoder in the preferences to AIFF, right clicked, and used Convert Selection to AIFF. I navigated in the terminal to both files (the CD and the iTunes AIFF conversion), did an md5 sum on each, and they don't match.

md5sums match if you import the AIFF to your local drive using a Terminal cp command, so it's not changing there.

Anyone got an explanation why I don't see what I'd expect I'd see here?

(edited to clarify a poorly worded paragraph)

[Horsepoo!!!]

Could just be that the metadata changed but not sure.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Could just be that the metadata changed but not sure.


that's what i was thinking. iTunes may have some kind of "ripped by iTunes" tag that it adds, or something along those lines.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by C.J. Moof:
Here's my question: If this is lossess, wouldn't that mean that if you took a file from a CD, ripped it to Apple Lossless, then put it back out as AIFF, your starting and ending AIFFs will be identical?

If the files are identical, they'll have the same md5 checksum. But they don't.

I took a CD, ripped a file into iTunes using Apple Lossless. Then I changed my default encoder in the preferences to AIFF, right clicked, and used Convert Selection to AIFF. I navigated in the terminal to both files (the CD and the iTunes AIFF conversion), did an md5 sum on each, and they don't match.

md5sums match if you import the AIFF to your local drive using a Terminal cp command, so it's not changing there.

Anyone got an explanation why I don't see what I'd expect I'd see here?

(edited to clarify a poorly worded paragraph)

Probably a similar answer to this one regarding FLAC and WAV: click here (http://flac.sourceforge.net/faq.html#tools__wave_flac_wave)

[starman]

Oh, Christ people, instead of squabbling about it, why not actually TRY it?

I took track one of Jean Michel Jarre's Equinoxe and converted it both to lossless m4a and .AIFF. I then took the .m4a file and used Quicktime to convert it back to AIFF and compared the file sizes.

Raw AIFF - 25,728,422
Converted - 25,722,934

I don't know if there are any differences because of framing or the conversion from m4a to AIFF since I don't have a wave editor here.

Mike

[MOTHERWELL]

How do the file sizes of the lossless codec compare to MP3 or AAC?

[starman]

It depends on the track itself, but MP3 is roughly 1/10th the size of the raw AIFF file.

Mike

[MOTHERWELL]

So the lossless files are pretty big compared to MP3s and AACs. My 30GB iPod doesn't hold an obscene amount of music anymore :(

[starman]

Well, I don't use my iPod to hold lossless crap anyway. I use it for driving and listening to music at work. I don't NEED lossless compression on a regular basis. I'm glad the option's there to save space when you need to transfer files.

Mike

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by MOTHERWELL:
So the lossless files are pretty big compared to MP3s and AACs. My 30GB iPod doesn't hold an obscene amount of music anymore :(

according to this site (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm) (posted in the Digital Video/Audio forum), Apple's lossless codec is about 60% of the size of a raw AIFF file. (probably around 900kbps, or around 7x the size of a 128 kbps MP3/AAC)

[starman]

..and for the hell of it I compressed the file using rar and zip.

rar file - 15MB
zip file - 22MB
m4a file - 13MB

Mike

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by starman:
..and for the hell of it I compressed the file using rar and zip.

rar file - 15MB
zip file - 22MB
m4a file - 13MB

Mike

if you decompress the rar/zip, does the md5sum match?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by starman:
..and for the hell of it I compressed the file using rar and zip.

rar file - 15MB
zip file - 22MB
m4a file - 13MB

Mike

That's good...that means they're actually using an compression algorithm more suitable for audio.

What I'd like to see is file size comparison between FLAC and Apple Lossless. The difference probably wouldn't be very big but I'm interested in knowing which is better.

[starman]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
if you decompress the rar/zip, does the md5sum match?

I shouldn't even have to check it to tell you that these are NOT audio-based compression schemes; they're file-based.

Mike

[tooki]

Zoinks!

OK, I'm going to close this thread temporarily: just long enough for me to draw a diagram that hopefully will elucidate things.

tooki

[tooki]

http://home.comcast.net/~tooki/audio.png

First, the legend:

1. is the source audio.
2. is the encoder, be it MP3, AAC, or the new lossless one
3. is the audio file containing the compressed audio data
4. is the MP3/AAC/Apple Lossless decoder
5. is the newly decompressed audio in the player's buffer
6. is the operating system's audio playback subsystem, which sends the audio to the playback hardware

A is the flow of uncompressed audio
B is the flow of compressed audio to the file
C is the flow of compressed audio to the decoder
D is the flow of newly decompressed audio to the buffer
E is the flow of decompressed audio to the OS


So, what is the "bitrate"?

What iTunes shows as bitrate is C.

What some people here need to understand is that at point D, ALL audio, no matter what format it once was, is 1440Kbps uncompressed audio! (Obviously, this does not apply to pro audio, where higher raw bitrates are common.)

A lossy encoder throws out data that it hopes/assumes/thinks you won't notice is gone. Thus, in lossy compression, flows A and D will not be identical.

A lossless encoder is designed to reproduce, bit for bit, the original audio stream. This means that A and D will be absolutely identical. Anyone claiming to detect a difference with a lossless encoder is hallucinating, or suffering from the placebo effect.

Note that all the audio effects, such as Sound Check, EQ, and crossfade, are basically done at flow E. Any distortion introduced at that stage is not the encoder/decoder's fault.

tooki

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
What I'd like to see is file size comparison between FLAC and Apple Lossless. The difference probably wouldn't be very big but I'm interested in knowing which is better.


I think i posted this somewhere else in the thread, but this site (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm) (originally posted by someone in the digital audio forum) compares many different lossless codecs. Apple's definitely isn't the best, but the ~5% difference in file size between Apple's and the best isn't really worth it (in my opinion) when you take the efficiency into account (Apple's takes far less processor power). The file sizes of Apple- and FLAC-encoded songs are nearly identical, but FLAC is less processor-intensive.


edit: nice graphs, tooki. hopefully that'll clear some stuff up :thumbsup:

[Bobby]

Originally posted by tooki:
http://home.comcast.net/~tooki/audio.png


Any chance of clearing this up for the color blind???


j/k...
Sorry, couldn't resist...

:P

[Developer]

So should I re-rip my music collection as Apple Losless, or can I convert from AAC? I have about 1500 songs, so re-ripping it all would be a lot of work.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
according to this site (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm) (posted in the Digital Video/Audio forum), Apple's lossless codec is about 60% of the size of a raw AIFF file. (probably around 900kbps, or around 7x the size of a 128 kbps MP3/AAC)
I just gave it a try. Here were my results:

Original AIFF: 80.5 MB

Apple Lossless: 16.8 MB (21.0% of the original size!)

AAC 128 kbps: 6.2 MB (7.8% of original size)

Color me impressed! My results were certainly better than 60%, and the Apple Lossless file was less than three times the size of the AAC...

[itai195]

The reason your md5sum isn't matching is because it's a file based hash. This is a lossless audio codec, which only means the audio content of the files is reproduced perfectly. That doesn't mean the files themselves will retain the same structure or non-audio content.

Sorry if someone pointed that out already :D

[itai195]

Originally posted by Developer:
So should I re-rip my music collection as Apple Losless, or can I convert from AAC? I have about 1500 songs, so re-ripping it all would be a lot of work. There would be no point in converting from AAC to lossless, because AAC is not a lossless encoding.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by itai195:
There would be no point in converting from AAC to lossless, because AAC is not a lossless encoding.
Indeed, the only thing that would gain you would be increased file sizes.

[iamnotmad]

Excellent, thanks tooki.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:
So should I re-rip my music collection as Apple Losless, or can I convert from AAC? I have about 1500 songs, so re-ripping it all would be a lot of work. Converting aac to lossless will do absolutely nothing whatsoever except increase the size of your files by about five times or so.

It CANNOT improve sound quality - what's gone from the lossy aac compression is gone.

If you really want improved sound quality, you HAVE TO re-rip everything from the original source.

Though frankly, with your regular jabbing against "audiophiles", I suspect it won't make much of a difference to you, so I'd really recommend just staying with aac for practicality's sake.

-s*

[benb]

I won't have access to my iPod for a while to test this out, so if anybody could illuminate me that would be awesome.

If you encode in ALE, is there an option to transfer to the iPod in AAC or MP3?

If so, that would be awesome. Lossless for the home where the big HD is, and AAC transferred to the iPod automagically.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by iamnotmad:
Compression does not by definition have to throw out data.

:thumbsup: Exactly. And really, this is all anyone really needs to know about the matter.
It's simply the difference between lossy, and non lossy compression techniques.

Now then, while I am here.. I very much suspect this compression technology has been 'borrowed' from Emagics stock cuboard. Apple of course bought Emagic. And it was Emagic who some 5 years or so ago happened to develop 'ZAP' (Zero loss Audio Packer) which just like iTunes, used non lossy compression to reduce file sizes by some 50%.
And again, just like iTunes (if it is indeed the same technology), a compressed, then uncompressed file, will be an identical bit for bit copy of the original.

In short, there will be no sound quality difference to be heard with this new iTunes compression format, compared to unmolested original audio files straight from a commercial CD. Period.

[f1000]

You ninnies should've listened to Horse, Spheric, and Millennium before making Tooki go through all that trouble to explain things to you in TECHNICOLOR.

Go easy on the alcohol for awhile, Horse: your brain cells are still tender. :D

Oh, and Developer, like Horse I missed the sarcasm in your �golden wires� post when I first read it. :thumbsup:

[f1000]

My entire CD collection is in AIFF format. Is there ANY downside in converting it to this new, apparently proprietary lossless codec (aside from the fact that it might take hours to do)? The following, if true, are non-issues for me:

1. iPod & iTunes are the only players capable of playing back this new format.
2. Playing back a compressed file requires somewhat more processing power than playing back an AIFF file.

[MOTHERWELL]

This is somewhat off the original topic:

I have learned that FLAC is a lossless codec. Can iTunes play FLAC files? What app can? I am also comtemplating converting my CD collection to the new lossless format (I know it's different that flac, but I am just trying to get info)

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by f1000:
My entire CD collection is in AIFF format. Is there ANY downside in converting it to this new, apparently proprietary lossless codec (aside from the fact that it might take hours to do)? The following, if true, are non-issues for me:

1. iPod & iTunes are the only players capable of playing back this new format.
2. Playing back a compressed file requires somewhat more processing power than playing back an AIFF file.

If those 2 are non-issues (2 should really be a non-issue since according to that link to the comparisons between lossless codecs, Apple opted for slightly worse compression that other lossless to gain better encoding and decoding speed...any OS X-capable Mac should be fine decoding it in realtime with lots of CPU to spare) then there is no major downside.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by MOTHERWELL:
This is somewhat off the original topic:

I have learned that FLAC is a lossless codec. Can iTunes play FLAC files? What app can? I am also comtemplating converting my CD collection to the new lossless format (I know it's different that flac, but I am just trying to get info)

Last I heard, someone was working on making a FLAC plugin for iTunes/QT (and MonkeyAudio) but I haven't heard if it was finished.

[frates]

So, is 'Apple Lossless Audio Codec' the same as MPEG-4 ALS (which specs are not freezed, today) ?

http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/projekte/lossless/mpeg4als.html

[Developer]

Originally posted by frates:
So, is 'Apple Lossless Audio Codec' the same as MPEG-4 ALS (which specs are not freezed, today) ?

http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/projekte/lossless/mpeg4als.html Why don't you ask Liebchen?

[klinux]

Originally posted by Bobby:
Any chance of clearing this up for the color blind???

What, the color blind can't read? :)

In any case, rather than giving lessons on basic audio encoding container structure? The discussion should by the fracturing of the lossless codecs: FlAC, Monkey's Audio, WMA lossless, RA lossless, and now Apple lossless! :brick:

IMHO, Apple should have throw it's weight behind FLAC especially if it wants to espouse its philosophy of supporting standards and open-source.

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by klinux:
What, the color blind can't read? :)

In any case, rather than giving lessons on basic audio encoding container structure? The discussion should by the fracturing of the lossless codecs: FlAC, Monkey's Audio, WMA lossless, RA lossless, and now Apple lossless! :brick:

IMHO, Apple should have throw it's weight behind FLAC especially if it wants to espouse its philosophy of supporting standards and open-source.

I bet (hope!?) they made thier own so it can contain fairplay DRM, and eventually will ofer iTMS songs in ALE. That would be great!

[goMac]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
that's what i was thinking. iTunes may have some kind of "ripped by iTunes" tag that it adds, or something along those lines.

It does. iTunes will tag the file with the version of the encoder used.

[tooki]

Originally posted by Developer:
So should I re-rip my music collection as Apple Losless, or can I convert from AAC? I have about 1500 songs, so re-ripping it all would be a lot of work.
The 'loss' in 'lossy' already happened: it's in the encoding step. Once you've encoded into a lossy format, the data is already gone and cannot be recovered.

This is true for audio, images, and video.

tooki

[[APi]TheMan]

Originally posted by Developer:
Even then. The "audiophiles" will be able to hear the difference:

"The new Apple Lossless Codec is a fantastic codec, however quiet classic music sounds a little bit cramped and lacks dynamics compared to the original. All tests were performed on $30,000 equipment with golden wires."

Wait for it. You're going to read it. I don't listen to quiet classic music. I listen to the heaviest music I can find. I don't think that Deeds of Flesh or Suffocation would sound any different with a "lossless" codec on my crappy Altec Lansing speakers... or in my car where I have tons of bass and all I want to do is bang my head and tap my steering wheel.

Arguing about the losslessness of this new codec is ridiculous for most, as most of us are not audiophiles. What did the audiophiles use 10 years ago when cassette tapes ruled music? It's all a figment of the imagination. I guess people just need an excuse to fill ever-expanding harddrives and to use their 4 Ghz computers for something other than e-mail and word processing, eh?

192 kbps MP3 for me, please! ;)

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Developer:
So should I re-rip my music collection as Apple Losless, or can I convert from AAC? I have about 1500 songs, so re-ripping it all would be a lot of work.
Re-rip. The AACs are already lossy-compressed, so converting them would do nothing to the sound quality. That's what lossy means; the data is lost.

The term 'lossy compression' is actually something of a misnomer. It actually involves two things, sometimes done in two steps, sometimes in one. In the first step, which can be called psychoacoustic analysis in audio (similar steps exist for video and graphics, but the names are different), 'unnecessary' data is taken out. For sound, this is supposed to mean only sound which is outside the range of human hearing, but no codec is perfect at this; there's always some loss of audible sound (though most people, myself included, usually can't tell the difference). This is done so that the audio will compress better, but at this point it is not "compressed" in the traditional sense.

Compression is the second "step" in this process. Once the analysis is complete, the data is run through one of a number of compression algorithms. This step usually doesn't involve any further loss of data, but the "damage" has already been done by the analysis, so lost data is still lost.

Basically, ALC is just the compression step, without the analysis. This is how it can compress without losing data.

[tooki]

Actually, I have to take exception with that analysis, as there are lossy encoders that significantly predate psychoacoustic analysis methods. One example is the IMA compression scheme, which was available for use in compressed AIFF files as well as Mac System 7 sounds.

Psychoacoustic analysis is a newer technique which significantly increased quality while simultaneously reducing bitrate, compared to earlier lossy compression methods. The sound is analyzed based on principles of what sounds are audible in combination, for example by masking. (Can you hear a fly buzzing by in a silent room? Yes. Can you hear the same fly buzz by your ear on a busy street? No. So the encoder won't waste any data encoding the fly, and will allocate it all to the sound of the truck driving by.)

Lossless compression basically treats the audio data as computer data -- it must be returned exactly to its original state upon decompression.

tooki

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by [APi]TheMan:
Arguing about the losslessness of this new codec is ridiculous for most, as most of us are not audiophiles. What did the audiophiles use 10 years ago when cassette tapes ruled music? It's all a figment of the imagination. I guess people just need an excuse to fill ever-expanding harddrives and to use their 4 Ghz computers for something other than e-mail and word processing, eh?

192 kbps MP3 for me, please! ;) Actually, I know that quite a few audiophiles *were* using cassettes (when not vinyl), since a well-recorded cassette from a high-quality turntable will still beat the pants off most CD players.

However, any "audiophile" who claims that car stereos and earbuds can be "audiophile" is full of ****.

That said, mp3s are bad enough that I'd really like to do a comparison between that and ALE in my car before passing judgement.

-s*

[C.J. Moof]

Originally posted by goMac:
It does. iTunes will tag the file with the version of the encoder used.

Ah- that's a good explanation for why the aiffs in aiff ->apple lossless -> aiff progression aren't completely identical. Thanks.

[memento]

Originally posted by [APi]TheMan:
...What did the audiophiles use 10 years ago when cassette tapes ruled music? It's all a figment of the imagination....

Audiophiles didn't use cassettes (except MAYBE with the Nakamichi Dragon cassette recorder/player). Cassettes were horrible sounding. Even to me, a non-audiophile. It's not a figment of imagination, but there is diminishing returns. I can easily hear the difference in speakers and amps, but can barely hear the difference between a $500 CD player and a $5000 one.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by memento:
Audiophiles didn't use cassettes (except MAYBE with the Nakamichi Dragon cassette recorder/player). Cassettes were horrible sounding. Even to me, a non-audiophile. It's not a figment of imagination, but there is diminishing returns. I can easily hear the difference in speakers and amps, but can barely hear the difference between a $500 CD player and a $5000 one.
cassette players are often not exactly the same speed, and thus pitch is distorted. and to a classical snob, nothing is more annoying than off-key recordings. ok, some things are, but it's up there :err: :D

[chabig]

Don't forget that if you want to use the lossless codec with your iPod you will have dramatically worse battery life. The little hard drive will have to work a lot harder to transfer data to the buffer.

Chris

[f1000]

Originally posted by chabig:
Don't forget that if you want to use the lossless codec with your iPod you will have dramatically worse battery life. The little hard drive will have to work a lot harder to transfer data to the buffer.

Chris
Excellent point!

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
cassette players are often not exactly the same speed, and thus pitch is distorted. and to a classical snob, nothing is more annoying than off-key recordings. ok, some things are, but it's up there :err: :D
Especially if you're a classical snob with perfect pitch... :hmm:

I've noticed it on some records, too, though. CD's are fine, though.

[selowitch]

Option-clicking on an existing MP3/ACC track offer the option to Convert to Apple Lossless.

Would I be correct to assume that it would be far preferable to delete the file, reinsert the CD the file came from, and reimport as a Apple Loseless Encoded file, right?

EDIT: I saw an earlier post that answers this question, but for some reason I can't delete this post. Sorry.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Especially if you're a classical snob with perfect pitch... :hmm:

I've noticed it on some records, too, though. CD's are fine, though.
i'm too young for records :D . but this subtopic brings up annoying memories of my building's elevators, one of which beeps and bops at a fine sounding F and C, the other about 30 cents higher on each :mad:

[dav]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
I've noticed it on some records, too, though. CD's are fine, though.

i would hope so, cds are more accurate than vinyl

[klinux]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Actually, I know that quite a few audiophiles *were* using cassettes (when not vinyl), since a well-recorded cassette from a high-quality turntable will still beat the pants off most CD players.

As others have pointed out, while audiophiles may have used cassettes, it is because that is the only available recordable and portable format at the time (not many people had reel-to-reel or, later, DAT). It is not due to casette's superior sound.

In fact, I can so emphatically, at no point in time, not in the past, now, or ever, is the output from a cassette (magnetic recording medium, wow and flutter, deterioration with time, etc) recorded from a turntable (signal degradation) sound better than that of a CD player.

[Mac Write]

Originally posted by benb:
I won't have access to my iPod for a while to test this out, so if anybody could illuminate me that would be awesome.

If you encode in ALE, is there an option to transfer to the iPod in AAC or MP3?

If so, that would be awesome. Lossless for the home where the big HD is, and AAC transferred to the iPod automagically.

That's exactly what I want to see in iTunes. use AIFF (when I first thought about this) and this) or ALE now and then when you want to do a MP3 CD or transfer to an iPod etc it will convert to AAC or MP3. We should all suggest this to Apple. Apple's argument will be "Then it will be slower to put stuff on the iPod or burn an MP3 CD" well people using ALE won't care about that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by memento:
Audiophiles didn't use cassettes (except MAYBE with the Nakamichi Dragon cassette recorder/player). Cassettes were horrible sounding. Even to me, a non-audiophile. It's not a figment of imagination, but there is diminishing returns. I can easily hear the difference in speakers and amps, but can barely hear the difference between a $500 CD player and a $5000 one. I'm afraid that every single point in your post is incorrect, except the admission that *you* cannot hear.

Which is fine - just don't make assertions.

Originally posted by dav:
i would hope so, cds are more accurate than vinylAs a medium, anything digital is BY DEFINITION less accurate than analog.

Originally posted by klinux:
In fact, I can so emphatically, at no point in time, not in the past, now, or ever, is the output from a cassette (magnetic recording medium, wow and flutter, deterioration with time, etc) recorded from a turntable (signal degradation) sound better than that of a CD player.You are wrong.

And rather than give you audiophile blabla (which is pointless unless you've heard it, I realize): The validity of your statement depends *entirely* upon the quality of components used.

A badly-mastered vinyl album copied from a $48,000 Zarathustra turntable to a fifteen-year-old no-name cassette tape on a Radio Shack tape deck will probably sound worse than an excellently-mastered version of the album on a $500 CD player. You are probably correct in that case.

Let's drop it. This is about ALE, which is a good thing. :thumbsup:

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Mac Write:
That's exactly what I want to see in iTunes. use AIFF (when I first thought about this) and this) or ALE now and then when you want to do a MP3 CD or transfer to an iPod etc it will convert to AAC or MP3. We should all suggest this to Apple. Apple's argument will be "Then it will be slower to put stuff on the iPod or burn an MP3 CD" well people using ALE won't care about that. How long does it take to convert just a single album to .aac?

Now convert enough to fill up a 40-GB iPod.

I don't think so.

:rolleyes:

[iamnotmad]

Originally posted by Mac Write:
That's exactly what I want to see in iTunes. use AIFF (when I first thought about this) and this) or ALE now and then when you want to do a MP3 CD or transfer to an iPod etc it will convert to AAC or MP3. We should all suggest this to Apple. Apple's argument will be "Then it will be slower to put stuff on the iPod or burn an MP3 CD" well people using ALE won't care about that.

That would be great - I'd like to see this too.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
How long does it take to convert just a single album to .aac?

Now convert enough to fill up a 40-GB iPod.

I don't think so.

:rolleyes:

Some people just have difficulties with reasoning. Just ignore them. :)

They don't actually think very far ahead and don't ever envision the very likely scenario of someone being in a hurry and trying to get his songs on his iPod as soon as possible before the train leaves or the plane leaves but realizes that he has to wait 4 hours for iTunes to convert his songs to aac before sending them to the iPod.

[Mac Write]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Some people just have difficulties with reasoning. Just ignore them. :)

They don't actually think very far ahead and don't ever envision the very likely scenario of someone being in a hurry and trying to get his songs on his iPod as soon as possible before the train leaves or the plane leaves but realizes that he has to wait 4 hours for iTunes to convert his songs to aac before sending them to the iPod.

The best way to do it is have a check box to tell iTunes you have an iPod or something, then iTunes double imports stuff and hides the AAC files for the iPod.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Mac Write:
The best way to do it is have a check box to tell iTunes you have an iPod or something, then iTunes double imports stuff and hides the AAC files for the iPod. I guess.

I don't think anybody would take advantage of this, but sure...

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I guess.

I don't think anybody would take advantage of this, but sure...
i've been known to rip twice in aiff and vbr mp3, keeping the mp3s on the ipod... (i separate the two by changing the album name -- foobar AIFF and foobar mp3)

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Mac Write:
The best way to do it is have a check box to tell iTunes you have an iPod or something, then iTunes double imports stuff and hides the AAC files for the iPod.
That would waste a ridiculous amount of disk space.

[Todd Madson]

What I meant to say is: I couldn't hear any difference. You figure I would given
that I was the one who put it together. Thought ended.

[mitchell_pgh]

I love audiophiles... because I don't understand them.

I buy a CD, burn it to MP3 @ 160 and toss the CD in the closet and forget about it.

I'll make a CD from the MP3 before going back to the original CD. It's just not worth my time to get a 5% - 10% increase in quality (which I can't even hear most of the time).

For the car, I would argue that you can NOT tell the difference between a CD and a MP3 at 128. The outside noise would destroy any audio enhancement...

My 2�

[krove]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
That would waste a ridiculous amount of disk space.

Computers come standard with 120 GB+ HDs now. 250 GB is standard on the G5. Space is hardly at a premium.

[klinux]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I love audiophiles... because I don't understand them.

I buy a CD, burn it to MP3 @ 160 and toss the CD in the closet and forget about it.

I'll make a CD from the MP3 before going back to the original CD. It's just not worth my time to get a 5% - 10% increase in quality (which I can't even hear most of the time).

For the car, I would argue that you can NOT tell the difference between a CD and a MP3 at 128. The outside noise would destroy any audio enhancement...

My 2�

Geez, why are you still talking then?

Apparently, there is a whole world of people out there who can hear the difference between CD and 128 kps MP3 hence the ton's of work people are putting in in improving LAME, AAC, WMA, RA, OGG, FLAC, Monkey's Audio, etc.

Just because you cannot hear it does not mean others cannot.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by krove:
Computers come standard with 120 GB+ HDs now. 250 GB is standard on the G5. Space is hardly at a premium.
Yeah, but not all OS X users have shiny new Macs. Remember, the OS is supported all the way back to the 1st-gen iMac. Some of those old machines have tiny hard drives. Hell, my G4/450 came with a 20 GB, which is small by today's standards, but my parents' iMac has a 6 GB drive.

[weldon]

I really like the idea of keeping a lossless copy of my collection. Hard drive's are cheap enough now that I could afford the space. I still need a lossy mp3 for use on the iPod or other portable devices. The real advantage of having the lossless copy is that I could transcode to mp3 or AAC and it would be the same result as if I encoded from the original CD. That way, when there are improvements in the encoders, I can re-encode and take advtange of the better lossy formats w/o having to fetch the actual CD.

I'd like to see a feature in iTunes that would maintain multiple copies of a song and choose the appropriate version to copy to the iPod. I've thought I could keep two smart playlists that distinguish between ALE and MP3 (easy enough) and then set the iPod to only copy the MP3 playlist, but custom playlists are a problem. I would have to make a copy of each playlist. Not that enjoyable really.

[mitchell_pgh]

Ah, the old vinyl vs. digital debate.

Quick and Dirty:

Vinyl is better because it's analog and gives you a full range 0-33,000 with an infinite amount of steps in between the 0 and 33,000 (yes, infinite or close to it).

Digital also goes from 0-33,000 (again, oversimplifying) but has steps along the way. (33,000 of them)

So, what if you want to go to step 38.345456543

With Vinyl you can, with Digital you can't.

Unfortunately, we have this little thing called Mitchell's Audiophile's Law.

Which states that the audio quality is only as good as the weakest component in a stereo, the environment around that stereo and the listener.

So what's going to sound better, a record on a fisher price record player with a fifteen year old sowing needle or a $5000 CD player?

When the best is placed against the best... vinyl will win out. But for 97% of the population, CD is a much more reasonable choice.

Also, you are splitting hairs when you choose AAC over MP3 if you are walking down a street because you won't be able to hear the difference.

Final note, if you are like me, you won't be able to tell the difference between MP3, AAC and AIFF. (unless the MP3 and AAC are at lower compression then normal and with select music)

[krove]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Yeah, but not all OS X users have shiny new Macs. Remember, the OS is supported all the way back to the 1st-gen iMac. Some of those old machines have tiny hard drives. Hell, my G4/450 came with a 20 GB, which is small by today's standards, but my parents' iMac has a 6 GB drive.

Then Apple should give us the choice. Problem solved.