Apple Lossless file support

[djphaidon]

ALAC, Apple Lossless format, is now open source and free for everyone to use. I use ALAC almost exclusively when I can, but I'm having to convert all my files to AIFF to use with Cross. I would like to see Apple Lossless format because it holds so much info in the tag, is lossless, takes up less space than AIFF, and works with iTunes really well so that organization isn't hindered. You should integrate it into Cross, and also make it a recording option

[Hannes]

+1

[MusicMeister]

Can I get a +1,000,000 on this?

I'm going to have to convert nearly 7,000 tracks from M4A Apple lossless to MP3 or AAC or AIFF or SOMETHING for this weekend.

I started re-ripping all my CD's to Apple Lossless and deleting all the Mp3's I had lying around of the same tracks to recover some of the space.... this is going to be a real pain...

Edit: Forgot to mention that ALAC is now open source....

http://Apple.slashdot.org/story/11/10/2 ... pen-source

[Support@MixVibes]

Are you sure you want this ?

Sorry it is in French and the english version is less technical.

À l'instar de tous les formats sans perte, ALAC permet de compresser sans aucune forme de dégradation des fichiers musicaux au format PCM à un taux de compression voisin de 40 à 50 % (les ratios mesurés peuvent cependant grandement varier en fonction principalement du volume (en décibels) de la piste, plus le volume est fort, comme pour la pop par exemple, plus le ratio est mauvais, à l'inverse du classique). Au regard des formats concurrents, ALAC présente une efficacité de compression moindre[réf. nécessaire]. Mais le format a été essentiellement développé en vue d'être décodé par des appareils bien moins puissants et autonomes que les ordinateurs de bureau (comprendre des baladeurs et l'iPod en particulier). Ainsi, les quelques pourcentages perdus en termes de ratio de compression sont compensés par une implémentation matérielle facilitée. Néanmoins, ALAC reste actuellement[Quand ?] inférieur aux autres formats sans perte de faible complexité. FLAC présente ainsi une rapidité supérieure pour un taux de compression quasi-identique, alors que WavPack bénéficie de performances en tout point (ratio de compression, vitesse d'encodage et de décodage) supérieures[réf. nécessaire].

- worst compression ratio of the lossless family
- the only purpose of it existence is to allow Idevice to read lossless audio with less cpu strenght.
- easiest to implement on weak devices (low cpu power)
- FLAC is faster to encode/decode with the same compression ratio
- WavPack is in an other league

EDIT : http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php ... comparison

MusicMeister, I didn't knew till now that m4a could be ALAC or AAC.
I'll see with the dev if there is no rights violation by using this open source into a commercial product.

[MusicMeister]

I would say 'yes' to wanting it... here's why:

1. Promo Only Pool gives me two choices for downloading tracks, M4A Apple lossless or MP3. I'd rather just get the M4A tracks and avoid the lossy altogether.

2. It's a no brainer to 'use' when ripping if you use iTunes. Just select Apple Lossless - especially since their MP3 implementation is based on the Fraunhofer algorithm which isn't exactly the best thing to use for MP3 (I REALLY prefer LAME).

Admittedly, when I used to rip I used CDex or EAC and LAME, but opted for iTunes ALAC when I moved to the Mac just out of laziness. And lossless is lossless as far as sound quality is concerned - even though there are other factors that come into play (encoding/decoding speed, etc).

And while there are work arounds on #2 to be able to rip to other formats, ALAC support would just make life easier so file format shifting wouldn't be necessary.

Unfortunately, sometimes VHS wins over BetaMax.... even though BetaMax was technologically superior. And I suspect that Apple's released it to open source because they want that format to be the most 'common' over FLAC, Monkey Audio, and WMA Lossless. If for no other reason so they don't have to support the others and wouldn't need to develop or include those codecs at a price (like they do now with MP3).

[Support@MixVibes]

Ok, noted, didn't knew all this about ALAC.

[MusicMeister]

Took a bit but I used Babylon.com to translate the article you posted.

Interesting notes... and compression ratios and effectiveness are important, but at the end of the day, more and more I'm seeing end user 'convenience' being a driving factor in one platform over another.

Especially if it just 'works'.

BTW, I just found out about the release of the codec to open source in the last day or two myself.

[djphaidon]

I'm in the same boat as MusicMeister with the Promo Only M4A files. I also only burn CD's to lossless, because at the end of the day, iTunes and ALAC just works. Conveniently.

I have already converted all my files I use in Cross to 320 AAC, because of the low noise floor, but would really prefer to be Lossless. And the only reason really that I prefer Apple lossless over FLAC is due to it's ability to work with iTunes and all my other iDevices without grief.

I have used both on high spec and low spec machines, and you don't really notice too much of a difference unless you are doing batch encoding. DJ applications don't really suffer from the efficiency issues, from what I can tell. I noticed back when I was using Traktor that all of the lossless files performed better CPU wise than the mp3's did, but I have no factual data to back that up, it was just an observation.

[MusicMeister]

Still need to check 2.3....

This is the only item holding me back from a full time switch...

[Support@MixVibes]

Still not added into 2.3