Topic: ALAC Now Open Source

[keytohwy]

I like that thunderbolt can support both USB and firewire adapters (though no one actually makes them yet).  so at least firewire support won't disappear even if firewire ports do

Actually, if you buy a new Thunderbolt Display from Apple, you get a USB, Firewire, and Gigabit Ethernet adapter included 

[OFOTD]

The iTunes store has been DRM-free for over two years.  But hey, why let facts get in the way of you making your point.

ahh facts and the apologists.

So from iTunes I download my favorite album.  Oh but wait its in AAC format because Apple has deemed it THE format of their online store rather than mp3 like damn near everyone else.  Then to transfer it to my android, wm7, etc device I must then re-encode said lossy file into another lossy format (regardless of DRM or not).  Now I have my album I purchased in the original lossy format (by my choice to buy that) and now a lossy re-encode of a lossy format.   As an alternative I can instead purchase an app for my non-Apple device to play AAC files.   Either way it costs me more money OR a further reduction in sound quality.

And this is supposed to be good for the consumer how?   

[keytohwy]

The iTunes store has been DRM-free for over two years.  But hey, why let facts get in the way of you making your point.

ahh facts and the apologists.

So from iTunes I download my favorite album.  Oh but wait its in AAC format because Apple has deemed it THE format of their online store rather than mp3 like damn near everyone else.  Then to transfer it to my android, wm7, etc device I must then re-encode said lossy file into another lossy format (regardless of DRM or not).  Now I have my album I purchased in the original lossy format (by my choice to buy that) and now a lossy re-encode of a lossy format.   As an alternative I can instead purchase an app for my non-Apple device to play AAC files.   Either way it costs me more money OR a further reduction in sound quality.

And this is supposed to be good for the consumer how?

Correcting your mis(dis?)information makes me an apologist?  Sweet!

Your original statement said that you had to buy a different version for your Android.  Not sure about all flavors of Android, but all the versions I've seen play AAC files natively.  So does WinMobile7.  Am I missing something here?

AAC is better for the consumer.  It is a standard.  And it is better than MP3.  Again, if you choose to believe Steve Jobs, Apple never wanted DRM.  He knew it was bad for the consumer, but the labels wouldn't have it any other way.

Now it is gone.  And we have a great format that lives in current times, not in the past like mp3 does.  I can't think of a modern media player that doesn't play both formats.

Do you care to elaborate on why you think you need to re-encode or buy apps to play AAC on an Android of WM7 device?

[scb]

So from iTunes I download my favorite album.  Oh but wait its in AAC format because Apple has deemed it THE format of their online store rather than mp3 like damn near everyone else.  Then to transfer it to my android, wm7, etc device I must then re-encode said lossy file into another lossy format (regardless of DRM or not).  Now I have my album I purchased in the original lossy format (by my choice to buy that) and now a lossy re-encode of a lossy format.   As an alternative I can instead purchase an app for my non-Apple device to play AAC files. 

http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html

AAC is the first audio codec listed.  If it really doesn't support anything higher than 160kbps, that's idiotic and not Apple's fault. 

(But hey, Android's open, so someone can easily change that right? )

[Todd R]

Sometimes having one option ISN'T a bad thing and actually benefits not only the content producer but the content purchaser as well.  Shocking I know.

As the taper who is sharing the music, I am the content provider.  And I'm telling you as the content provider, being locked into one codec, namely flac, is not benefiting me.  I would benefit from having other options.

I can see how only having to learn how to handle one codec is a benefit to the downloaders (content purchasers of free music?) since it makes their life easier, but it makes it harder on content proveders who use macs.

Also, I've got to say, all this Apple fanbois and Apple apologists is really annoying.  Would you call me a comcast fanboi if I was excited that Comcast started carrying more Big Ten channels in HD?  For some reason, we seem to be comfortable with the idea that someone can be a customer of comcast without thinking they are the greatest company on earth and the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Why is it people like you always assume that just because someone on balance decides to use an Apple product is immediately a fanboi and an apologist? I use products and services from thousands of companies.  It doesn't make me some over the top fan of these companies, i just use their products.

People use Apple products, and Apple making ALAC open source is good news not bad news.  Essentially telling people you shouldn't be using Apple products anyway (since they don't support flac) is really way besides the point.

[Brian E.]

I"d be much happier if Apple joined the 21st century and supported FLAC natively. I use Apple Lossless as it's so convenient. My iPod Touch likes it, my wife's 160 gb iPod Classic likes it, my son's iPod likes it, and I can control iTunes from my iPod Touch and use it around the house through my pc > stereo connection.

Haven't found a music player that supports gapless playback of FLAC that works as well in as many situations. So, I encode and archive as FLAC, but end up making ALAC copies of the stuff I really like.

Same.  I can play ALAC on my phone so I just get that for everything.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

I don't understand the 5 page arguement.  If you don't like ALAC, don't use it.  How simple is that??? 

Did we go through the same bitch session when we first made the switch from SHN to FLAC???

Terry

[OFOTD]

I don't understand the 5 page arguement.  If you don't like ALAC, don't use it.  How simple is that??? 

Did we go through the same bitch session when we first made the switch from SHN to FLAC???

I think Terry the 5 pages has devolved into an Apple vs. type of discussion.   A discussion can't be had on an Apple related subject without it being taken as a full on assault against Apple themselves.  No distinguishing between the company and just one product.     

Yeah we did go trough the same technical merit based type of discussion from the change of SHN to FLAC.  But once the facts were in, that conversation became easier and it became just a small workflow change.  It was an evolutionary change not a redundant company strong arm change.   There was also no blind brand loyalty for SHN like there appears to be for ALAC.     Because again on its technical and practical merits is just can't compete with the currently well established lossless codecs.

Funny thing is that this wouldn't even be an issue if Apple allowed FLAC.   If FLAC were available on iOS devices does anyone really think ALAC would even be mentioned?  Don't think so.

[keytohwy]

I don't understand the 5 page arguement.  If you don't like ALAC, don't use it.  How simple is that??? 

Did we go through the same bitch session when we first made the switch from SHN to FLAC???

I think Terry the 5 pages has devolved into an Apple vs. type of discussion.   A discussion can't be had on an Apple related subject without it being taken as a full on assault against Apple themselves.  No distinguishing between the company and just one product.     

I only got involved when I saw out and out bad information being passed along as if it were fact. 

I'd still like to hear your answers to those questions I asked of you in my previous post.

But I think that it is a different discussion that SHN and FLAC.  They are slightly different beasts, built for different tasks (I see ALAC built solely for DRM purposes).  But again, I could not sit idly by with such bad info being given as the gospel.

[OFOTD]

I only got involved when I saw out and out bad information being passed along as if it were fact.

I'll just assume the outlandish and out and out bad information about ALAC providing supposed power savings just got by you then.

[keytohwy]

I only got involved when I saw out and out bad information being passed along as if it were fact.

I'll just assume the outlandish and out and out bad information about ALAC providing supposed power savings just got by you then.

I didn't make that claim.

And you approrpiately pointed out that you sought a source for the belief that power savings were superior with ALAC.  None have to come to light (I haven't looked for any).

Are you saying that since there was perhaps bad info on one side of a discussion, it licenses the other to be loose with their facts?

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

I don't understand the 5 page arguement.  If you don't like ALAC, don't use it.  How simple is that??? 

Did we go through the same bitch session when we first made the switch from SHN to FLAC???

I think Terry the 5 pages has devolved into an Apple vs. type of discussion.   A discussion can't be had on an Apple related subject without it being taken as a full on assault against Apple themselves.  No distinguishing between the company and just one product.

I know...  It always does...  I still don't get it...  People like different things and have different needs.  Just because Apple et al doesn't fit your needs doesn't mean it doesn't fit anothers...

Yeah we did go trough the same technical merit based type of discussion from the change of SHN to FLAC.  But once the facts were in, that conversation became easier and it became just a small workflow change.  It was an evolutionary change not a redundant company strong arm change.   There was also no blind brand loyalty for SHN like there appears to be for ALAC.     Because again on its technical and practical merits is just can't compete with the currently well established lossless codecs.

Well, on the various ETREE forums, there was a lot of talk about FLAC in the beginning.  I stuck with SHN well past the time most people switched to FLAC, if only because it was easier for me.  At the time, I didn't see the need or use for FLAC.  I saw it as redundant, but as FLAC has taken over, I've made the switch. 

And I don't see it as a company strong arming anything.  I see it as a third party trying to bridge the gap between the Mass Media Market (RIAA and iPoders) and the Audiophile market (Geeks and us).  I can see ALAC becoming a preferred method of DLing music since it is iPOd compatible, and of CD (or greater) quality.  Since storage space and wifi connectivity, etc have become small and inexpensive issues, I can foresee ALAC slowly taking over where AAC is predominant... 

And if they (whomever you choose since its open source now) can make it as functional (or more) as FLAC, then I see no issue...  You might, but I don't...

Basically, I think that what you are saying is just about waht I was saying when went to FLAC (why change the ETREE standard to accomodate a new format, we don't bother with APE, etc.)...  But here I am using FLAC...   I was proven wrong, you might be too...

Funny thing is that this wouldn't even be an issue if Apple allowed FLAC.   If FLAC were available on iOS devices does anyone really think ALAC would even be mentioned?  Don't think so.

Damn skippy!  I'll always hate on Crapple for this one!!!

Terry

[scb]

I think Terry the 5 pages has devolved into an Apple vs. type of discussion.   A discussion can't be had on an Apple related subject without it being taken as a full on assault against Apple themselves. 

That's certainly one way to look at it.  Another would be to say people can't discuss a product that Apple had a hand in creating without you trying to trash it.

Yeah we did go trough the same technical merit based type of discussion from the change of SHN to FLAC.  But once the facts were in, that conversation became easier and it became just a small workflow change. 

Switching from FLAC to ALAC is also just a small workflow change.  However, no one is trying to force ALAC on anyone.  This thread was simply a discussion saying another format was open source. 

There was also no blind brand loyalty for SHN like there appears to be for ALAC.     

You really should stop making things up. 

Funny thing is that this wouldn't even be an issue if Apple allowed FLAC.   If FLAC were available on iOS devices does anyone really think ALAC would even be mentioned? 

Absolutely. 

I have been writing software that deals with lossless compression formats for almost 9 years now.  It started as a side project I thought 10-20 people might use and turned into something that's been downloaded over a million times.  I don't say that to try to brag or sound better than anyone else, but I do think that it's given me a pretty good idea of what codecs are in use and how widespread they are. 

You'd be surprised at how many support emails I get from users about Monkey's Audio, Wavpack and even TTA.  It's a hell of a lot more than you think.  So no, FLAC is not the only game in town. 

[lastubbe]

I could careless that Apple doesn't support FLAC.  I enjoy archiving in FLAC, and playing when I feel like it in FLAC on non-Apple products.

Their products are fantastic though, and I'm willing and able to adapt to what they make available.  Going FLAC>ALAC when loading a new batch of shows onto my iPod requires one extra minimal step.  Same step if I were to make MP3's.

It's really not that big of a deal.  As long as my tags stay in place I'm happy. 

I get far more annoyed by having to tag other peoples stuff I download!   

[OFOTD]

That's certainly one way to look at it.  Another would be to say people can't discuss a product that Apple had a hand in creating without you trying to trash it.

Pretty much just the antenna gate issue and ALAC are my issues with Apple. I can name many things and have about Microsoft, Google and others that suck.  Apple customers just seem to be the most defensive. As i've said on many occasions before I own several Apple products and as I've repeatedly said, the issues I have with ALAC are the same I have with others such as WMAL.   You only get upset when the Apple component is talked about and only focus on it.  Can't help you with that hang up.

However, no one is trying to force ALAC on anyone.  This thread was simply a discussion saying another format was open source.

Apple is trying to force the format to people that own an Apple device free and clear.    It's like Panasonic telling you that you can only watch NBC on their TV's because that's what Panasonic says is the best.   

There was also no blind brand loyalty for SHN like there appears to be for ALAC.

You really should stop making things up. 

   
No offense Scott but get real man and just own up to your Apple brand loyalty.   Nothing wrong with it, Apple depends on it and it works for you but to deny that you and others have it then you're just fooling yourself or you think the rest of us are idiots.  It's like when anything negative is said about Apple you take it personally like someone is taking a direct shot at you or your family.  Like its a personal attack aimed squarely against you individually.   It's not.  It's a personal attack on one product of hundreds that they produce.  That's all.

Funny thing is that this wouldn't even be an issue if Apple allowed FLAC.   If FLAC were available on iOS devices does anyone really think ALAC would even be mentioned?

Absolutely. 

I have been writing software that deals with lossless compression formats for almost 9 years now.  It started as a side project I thought 10-20 people might use and turned into something that's been downloaded over a million times.  I don't say that to try to brag or sound better than anyone else, but I do think that it's given me a pretty good idea of what codecs are in use and how widespread they are. 

You'd be surprised at how many support emails I get from users about Monkey's Audio, Wavpack and even TTA.  It's a hell of a lot more than you think.  So no, FLAC is not the only game in town.

 

I have no doubt that folks ask for those other formats for support, guidance and help.  I certainly have no doubts and much appreciation for your generous contributions over the last nine years.  With that experience you should know that each one of the above codec's you listed is a technically superior codec to ALAC.  That's just the truth.  There is no question or doubt about that.

Where things differ here is that

1. FLAC is the predominant lossless codec right now.  Not the only lossless codec but the most widespread.  Monkey's, WavPack and even TTA are codecs that offer slightly different features on top of core features that again already out pace ALAC and others.  For example WavPack supports multi-channel audio ( >7.1) that others don't.   Monkey's is a codec popular in Russia predominately but itself lack certain features (multichannel, error correction) and quite honestly probably is another codec that should be phased out.  TTA is really trying to be an embedded hardware format and not really intended as a portable music format like FLAC and the others are supportive of.   

2. Apple is the leader in portable audio players sales right now in the US.  More iPod's than Zune's, Nomad's, etc.  So they have real power in pushing (or forcing depending on your outlook) formats.  In this case with iOS they are pushing/forcing a redundant and comparatively inferior codec on its customers.  Once again how is that good for the consumer?

3. If you were to take out the Apple development connection to ALAC entirely.  Pretend IBM made it up for the sake of the discussion.  Then compare it to the other offerings you support with your software and tell me why anyone would choose it?    Because it plays on an IBM music player is a fair answer but wouldn't you just wonder why they just don't make it easy for the consumer and support what is the generally used and accepted lossless format in addition to it being free? 

4. I find it silly that folks around here who are educated about audio and codecs would be more apt to defend these types of redundant codecs than they would be to say 'my audio player manufacturer is missing it here'.   If Microsoft made it so that you could only use WMAL on a Windows machine/device there would be crosses burning and antitrust suits being filed.  Apple in this case is given a pass.   It's accepted because Apple said so.  That does not make sense.

5. The argument that you don't have to use it is just hollow.  If you use the most popular portable audio player or the third most popular smart phone and want to listen to lossless files you have to use ALAC.   Why should I be restricted on a device I own because a manufacturer is for lack of a better phrase being heavy handed?

I would love to continue to debate the merits of audio codecs as I obviously have an interest and a bit of knowledge on them but if you can't be neutral based on facts and continue to feel like its a personal attack on you or your preferred technology company then discussion isn't what you want.