Apple Lossless becomes open source.
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?
.
Bits are bits and all that, but Apple Lossless still sounds the pits compared to any other lossless format.
Well since it's open source, now you can go in and make it sound better 
Nah, FLAC has done the work for me.
Bits are bits and all that, but Apple Lossless still sounds the pits compared to any other lossless format.
Talking about betting, don't forget the biggest race in the known universe is in Tuesday 
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.
.
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).
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?!?!'
Well "FLAC" rolls off the tongue more nicely
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.
Alas...
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?
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...? 
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.
- Login to post comments
Interesting. See, I told you it would become the de facto standard...
CA StreamMagic 6 | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1i
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com