 |
 |
iTunes 4.5 and Apple Lossless Encoding
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
As I'm sure many of you already know, Apple has updated both iTunes and Quicktime this morning to 4.5 and 6.5.1 respectively. One of the main things marketing seems to be pushing is the Apple Lossless Encoder . It's supposed to provide audio of the same quality as the traditional AIFF (Audio Interchange File Format), but provide file sizes at half the size.
I personally tried ripping a copy of Chaka Khan's Come 2 My House album to see if I noticed any superior audio. I did not. Non synthesized instrumental recordings probably would benefit most from this I'm assuming. Something like the New York Philharmonic playing Schubert's rendition of Ave Maria. Not some new pop tune you hear in the top 20. There is a direct relationship between the quality of recording equipment and the output.
In addition, I wonder if this is more catered to those in the content creation industries. Say you're John Mayer and you want to send a new track to a recording executive for evaluation. Then you can get optimal quality audio out there while keeping file sizes at acceptable levels for broadband.
Just wondering if any of you notice any significant differences between MPEG4 128kbit and Apple Lossless encoding. I personally cannot tell, but I have a $50 audio system I purchased from Costco. Feedback is encouraged... 
(
Last edited by RealMac; Apr 28, 2004 at 11:54 AM.
)
|
It is in the moments of decision that your destiny is shaped.
www.therealmac.net
MBA Graduate, Creative Thinker, Nice Guy
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
Can someone do the following test?
Rip a track with Apple Lossless Encoding and then rip the same track to FLAC. How do the filesizes compare?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Turias:
Can someone do the following test?
Rip a track with Apple Lossless Encoding and then rip the same track to FLAC. How do the filesizes compare?
Lossless chart
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
wow, they sure got that up fast
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by RealMac:
In addition, I wonder if this is more catered to those in the content creation industries. Say you're John Mayer and you want to send a new track to a recording executive for evaluation. Then you can get optimal quality audio out there while keeping file sizes at acceptable levels for broadband.
Yup, it seems to be the audio equivalent of Pixlet.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Harrisonburg, VA USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by RealMac:
Just wondering if any of you notice any significant differences between MPEG4 128kbit and Apple Lossless encoding. I personally cannot tell, but I have a $50 audio system I purchased from Costco. Feedback is encouraged...
You've actually hit the nail directly on the head..you probably can not hear the difference with a $50 sound system. Few people could. Think of it this way...most modern compressions work by marginalizing the data, so an audio system of marginal quality is only going to play marginal audio at best (ie both files sound like poop). Now take that same AAC file and compare it to an AIFF, WAV or theoretically the Apple Lossless format (I haven't played with it yet, so I can't say for sure) on a high end home theatre or car system and the difference will smack you in the eye. A high precisions system needs high precesion data in order to generate high precesion sound.
Now when your bit rate get higher than that (say in the 256k area), then I would argue that the difference even on high end systems is fairly negligible (with exceptions of course). Once I spent some real money on my car's sound system, I ended up re-ripping my entire MP3 collection, because I could suddenly hear the differnce between the CDs and the MP3s. I rip in the 256 area now and I have no complaints. The big deal here is that if it is, in fact, lossless, it means that there can be no higher quality from the same source. A lossless file contains all the data exactly as it is...there is no data lost -> lossless. And some people just love the idea of having the best. It's also useful if you are trying to create a permanent archive of our music collection.
-Grover
|
|
"Make good fight."
-Mr. Miyagi
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by grovberg:
The big deal here is that if it is, in fact, lossless, it means that there can be no higher quality from the same source. A lossless file contains all the data exactly as it is...there is no data lost -> lossless.
Maybe I am pedantic but most lossless codec vendors stress that their codec is <b>mathematically</b> lossless. So in theory, it should be as good as the CD. Whether one can hear the difference or not, well, that will be debated endlessly here and elsewhere. As I have always said, one's own ears are one's best judge of what sounds good; do not listen to what other people say!
I am still miffed Apple did not throw its weight behind FLAC.
|
|
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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