Apple Lossless is an interesting topic. Why would Apple create yet another file compression scheme that results in similar performance to open source alternatives? There is only one reason- $. By using a proprietary scheme they can put things in there that you don't know about. Either for data gathering, controlling playback, whatever. Or maybe they were going to sell you the code to restore your music to .wav files... Maybe you'd convert your whole library to play on your ipod. When the ipod gets too small or breaks, what are you going to buy to replace it? Maybe you'd be forced to buy another Apple product.
If you chose to encode your music using Apple Lossless there was no way to put it back into a .wav file. You gave up control. Now it's been reverse engineered so I guess you can go back to .wav, but why would anyone have accepted apple lossless in the first place?
Apple has managed to hypnotize a large part of the world into accepting DRM (no wonder Bush got elected TWICE!) and itunes. What's next?
People are such sheep.
I_F
If you chose to encode your music using Apple Lossless there was no way to put it back into a .wav file. You gave up control. Now it's been reverse engineered so I guess you can go back to .wav, but why would anyone have accepted apple lossless in the first place?
Apple has managed to hypnotize a large part of the world into accepting DRM (no wonder Bush got elected TWICE!) and itunes. What's next?
People are such sheep.
I_F
I_Forgot said:
You have always been able to save Apple lossless out as something else. It is built into iTunes.
Apple has been using OpenSource & industry standards whenever it made sense or they could coax the performance/functionality out of it. A lot of Apple's work is open source.
FreeBSD.OpenGL Konquerer. QuickTime Server to name a few.
Why they chose to make (i think they actually bought & modified -- i have my suspicions as to who's) their own lossless format, i don't know. Maybe it was because they needed something that the StrongARMs of the day could readily decode and flac wasn't it.
And what Apple really did was break the log-jam between the music publishing industry & legal downloadable music. They found a way to make it acceptable to the music execs. In doing so they made it possible for every other download music vendor to exist. Now they are using their clout to make downloads DRM free -- something the music execs would never have considered if Apple hadn't proved the point and if they didn't have the clout
I_Forgot said:
I don't see that analogy at all... it is probably more like Ford & his figuring out how to get cars into the hands of many, and blazing the trail for all auto manufacturers to follow.
If Apple hadn't come along the RIAA would still be hassling you and no one would be able to download legal music.
dave
The best format to store music files on H
As pointed out already, Hard Discs have dropped dramatically in price, as well as increased a lot in capacity.
Store as .wav files. One day you may step up to equipment with higher resolution than you have at the moment, and you will
more than likely be able to hear the difference without even needing to be fully relaxed. I have tried Flac and Monkey's Audio ,and in my equipment, (Class A amplification and a Musical Fidelity DAC) the difference is quite apparent.
On a couple of occasions I have been able to compare downloaded flac files with the same tracks on CDs that I own.
The original CDs sounded better,particularly as regards ambience.
On another occasion I downloaded a CD of an artist , where I had many other albums by the same artist. I was quite disppointed, so I imported the album. The real CD sounded very much better, and more like I was accustomed to hearing from this artist.Perhaps it is the qualityof the player that the lossless files
are ripped from that plays a part here. I refer to the quality of the transport mechanism,and the front end electronics, as well as chassis dampening.If you improve things like the noise from the player's power supply (particularly switchmode power supplies)
and dampen the chassis and case with adhesive felt or foam etc.to reduce "jitter",the sound quality of the output via SPDIF , and then through a quality DAC is quite noticeably improved . Perhaps lossless files using this improved digital stream may sound much closer to the actual information that is on the CD ?
SandyK
As pointed out already, Hard Discs have dropped dramatically in price, as well as increased a lot in capacity.
Store as .wav files. One day you may step up to equipment with higher resolution than you have at the moment, and you will
more than likely be able to hear the difference without even needing to be fully relaxed. I have tried Flac and Monkey's Audio ,and in my equipment, (Class A amplification and a Musical Fidelity DAC) the difference is quite apparent.
On a couple of occasions I have been able to compare downloaded flac files with the same tracks on CDs that I own.
The original CDs sounded better,particularly as regards ambience.
On another occasion I downloaded a CD of an artist , where I had many other albums by the same artist. I was quite disppointed, so I imported the album. The real CD sounded very much better, and more like I was accustomed to hearing from this artist.Perhaps it is the qualityof the player that the lossless files
are ripped from that plays a part here. I refer to the quality of the transport mechanism,and the front end electronics, as well as chassis dampening.If you improve things like the noise from the player's power supply (particularly switchmode power supplies)
and dampen the chassis and case with adhesive felt or foam etc.to reduce "jitter",the sound quality of the output via SPDIF , and then through a quality DAC is quite noticeably improved . Perhaps lossless files using this improved digital stream may sound much closer to the actual information that is on the CD ?
SandyK
Re: The best format to store music files on H
Here we go again...
Saving .wav files does not allow tagging. If all you want to do is back up your CDs and you don't ever care to play them off the HDD, then .wav is fine, though it unnecessarily uses about 80% more storage than the .flac files from the same disc.
.flac files and any other lossless format (apparently even apple lossless) can be converted back to the .wav files from whence they came.
As to differences in sound between the CD and lossless compressed formats, well, that topic has been beaten to death.
For some people, 2+2 will always equal 5. Of course, they are right, but only for very large values of 2.
I_F
sandyK said:
Here we go again...
Saving .wav files does not allow tagging. If all you want to do is back up your CDs and you don't ever care to play them off the HDD, then .wav is fine, though it unnecessarily uses about 80% more storage than the .flac files from the same disc.
.flac files and any other lossless format (apparently even apple lossless) can be converted back to the .wav files from whence they came.
As to differences in sound between the CD and lossless compressed formats, well, that topic has been beaten to death.
For some people, 2+2 will always equal 5. Of course, they are right, but only for very large values of 2.
I_F
the best format etc
Perhaps the topic has been beaten to death, but too many people in various forums have reported that flac and monkey's audio sounds inferior to the original .wav file.
I fully accept the point about tagging.
However, many people these days also play back their stored .wav files via SPDIF from their computer, to protect their original CDs.
Again , as suggested by Kec and others, I wonder , about your impartiality in this matter. If you are indeed open to accepting opinions from others, and then weighing up all the results without bias, perhaps you should replace the image of an .ape
saying "NO"
SandyK
Perhaps the topic has been beaten to death, but too many people in various forums have reported that flac and monkey's audio sounds inferior to the original .wav file.
I fully accept the point about tagging.
However, many people these days also play back their stored .wav files via SPDIF from their computer, to protect their original CDs.
Again , as suggested by Kec and others, I wonder , about your impartiality in this matter. If you are indeed open to accepting opinions from others, and then weighing up all the results without bias, perhaps you should replace the image of an .ape
saying "NO"
SandyK
There's no difference in the quality of the storage when using .wav or any lossless storage format. There is a difference in the quality of playback from the lossless formats and .wav players (and not going to venture my opinion). That depends on the software your using for playback only. The bits and bytes are the same (and in the same order and at the same speed).
If you're only going to store them, then I think flac is one of the best lossless algorithm for music files. I tend to play around using .wav files, as there are so many pieces of software that play them - and some do it quite well.
Itunes is one of the simplest to use (and you can always use it to load your Ipod, Inan, Imini, Ibrain with).
With regards the SPDIF/USB/firewire, I read an article recently on the pitfalls of SPDIF vs. USB recently. I'll try to dig it out and see if there's a soft version I can point to. IIRC it's a bandwidth issue...
If you're only going to store them, then I think flac is one of the best lossless algorithm for music files. I tend to play around using .wav files, as there are so many pieces of software that play them - and some do it quite well.
Itunes is one of the simplest to use (and you can always use it to load your Ipod, Inan, Imini, Ibrain with).
With regards the SPDIF/USB/firewire, I read an article recently on the pitfalls of SPDIF vs. USB recently. I'll try to dig it out and see if there's a soft version I can point to. IIRC it's a bandwidth issue...
Re: Re: Re: the best format etc
Yep... SPDIF has been critisized as deficient since it came out of the box, and people have gone to great lengths (and money) to get around its problems.... USB>IS2>DAC (limited pretty much to CD quality), Firewire>IS2>DAC is better (bit limited by no single chip Firewire>IS2 solution.
dave
MJL21193 said:
Yep... SPDIF has been critisized as deficient since it came out of the box, and people have gone to great lengths (and money) to get around its problems.... USB>IS2>DAC (limited pretty much to CD quality), Firewire>IS2>DAC is better (bit limited by no single chip Firewire>IS2 solution.
dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: the best format etc
Just to stay on topic, I use flac and wav. I have a ship-load of mp3's I play for background music.
If SPDIF has deficiencies, I'm not hearing them. I have it from my computer to my HT reciever. I have TOSLINK from my high def cable box to my HT reciever.
My computer has high definition audio - ALC883 codec. Perhaps this deals with the problems.
planet10 said:
Just to stay on topic, I use flac and wav. I have a ship-load of mp3's I play for background music.
If SPDIF has deficiencies, I'm not hearing them. I have it from my computer to my HT reciever. I have TOSLINK from my high def cable box to my HT reciever.
My computer has high definition audio - ALC883 codec. Perhaps this deals with the problems.
The best format etc
Planet 10
I presume you are only referring to SPDIF problems as pertaining to PCs ?
A well mastered CD when played back via a high quality CD/DVD transport, then fed into a high quality DAC, which increases the bit depth from 16 to 24, as well as upsampling to 192KHZ, can often sound almost identical to the same track when played from an SACD. (modded Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 compared with Marantz SA11 SACD player)
SandyK
Planet 10
I presume you are only referring to SPDIF problems as pertaining to PCs ?
A well mastered CD when played back via a high quality CD/DVD transport, then fed into a high quality DAC, which increases the bit depth from 16 to 24, as well as upsampling to 192KHZ, can often sound almost identical to the same track when played from an SACD. (modded Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 compared with Marantz SA11 SACD player)
SandyK
Re: The best format etc
AIf your CD transport could connect to the DAC with IS2 it could be even better
Not if the SACD is properly recorded and the SACD playback device is of similar quality to the CD playback device. Guys making CD players have had 20 years more practise than guys making SACD players.
dave
sandyK said:
AIf your CD transport could connect to the DAC with IS2 it could be even better
Not if the SACD is properly recorded and the SACD playback device is of similar quality to the CD playback device. Guys making CD players have had 20 years more practise than guys making SACD players.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.