Apple lossless audio codec (ALAC)
May 19, 2004 - 5:27pm — Anonymous
Hey, I'm curious to know specifically what Greg thinks about the new ALAC (Apple Loss-less Audio Codec), and what you all think too. Do you know anything of this new codec Greg? Aparently it was just launched with the most recent iTunes update.
How does it compare to other codecs?
Similar
Postings and comments are owned by their authors. What Boris says here doesn't necessarily apply anywhere else. You can subscribe by email if RSS isn't your bag, baby.
word that..
the PP5002D cpu in iPods gen 1, 2, & 3 have a memory bug which renders it inefficient at certain codecs, and is main reason Apple cannot implement support for multiple formats. ie. they've blamed it on the chip vendor.
Yes, that horrible DRM
DRM - the great Satan. The Weapon of Mass Destruction in Software. I think that's all a crock. Without DRM there would be no iPod, ITMS, ALAC, and no deal with music providers, all of which have been absolutely instrumental for moving the music industry away from litigation and towards working with technology companies.
Yes, OSS equivalents are free, but what Windows or Mac user cares? Look at the platform these OSS solutions run on, and the technical knowledge you need to have just to be able to run the programs.
Computer software that anyone would use on a daily basis should be intuitive to install and use, just like everything else on such a computer. Intuitive to any person you could walk up to on a road. And besides - DRM is only there for sharing, if you don't share music or try to be a dumbass and steal it, you don't have to worry, you have unlimited use.
OGG...
an OSS codec & wrapper
LAME, an OSS codec
Xvid, an OSS codec
FLAC, an OSS codec
all work well on many platforms, no special skillz required.
While I'm at it, the internet-poll type of listening tests don't hold any water. They don't control the playback chain - which has overwhelming influence on the sound quality which is heard - so their comparison results r close to meaningless.
there're lots of
lossless codecs near 2:1 ratio cuz it's trivial to do, and they're very similar in performance.
Lossless wud b good if 16/44.1 (CD) audio encoding is actually worth the effort, but it isn't. MP3 offers a better size/quality tradeoff.
For good sound quality, you'd want 24/96 or DSD encoding - which can also be losslessly zipped at ~2:1. Although such hi-res files are huge (60 minutes of stereo DSD is approx 2.5GB), they can sound great compared to CD, while the diff between 256k-MP3 and CD is small.
(plus, why anyone wud want theirs codec wrapped with DRM when OSS solutions are avail is beyond me.)