Topic: ALAC Now Open Source

[OFOTD]

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...

Nice response Terry with good points from your personal experience.  Appreciate it!

- Remember when the discussions about SHN were going on we were still very much new to lossless encoding and how it related to music.  Not just our live music but just music in general.   SHN was adopted early because it was very much marketed at the time to our segment.  Two things really swayed things over.  1. SHN was not free and not open source moving forward.  2. FLAC offered so many things that SHN was either incapable of doing or the developer was unwilling to do.   So a list gets put together of the feature sets that FLAC and SHN had.  After that it became a no brainer of which was a superior codec/format.  FLAC offered more at the time and offered more going forward into future expansion of the codec.  You may have seen FLAC as redundant, I suspect you either didn't see or were not aware of the differences in the formats.  Again it was an early time for lossless codecs.  People got stuck with SHN.  With any new technology once people learn one way they are usually reluctant to change even if for the better.  Human nature re: technology.   Once that feature list was in front of us then there was no question.   Then development came in the front end GUI game and people realized that it wasn't that big of a change workflow wise.   If FLAC were just SHN in new clothing then there wouldn't have been a switch.   Similar to that ALAC is more comparable SHN feature wise than it is to FLAC (multi channel nonwithstanding)

- re: Bridging a gap - I don't think Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon gives two shits about audiophiles.   They know audiophiles are going to do their own thing regardless of what they do.    We are all good examples of that.   Where the issue really lies is your friends and my friends who don't know the difference between FLAC , ALAC, WMAL, Wv.   The 99% if you will don't want to have to mess with TLH or xACT or whatever needed to change formats.   They want one.  That's why mp3 is so popular.    It's easy and for the most part has been developed to be superior to many other lossy formats.   I would suspect that if you were to get those people into lossless they would want the same consistency.   Currently FLAC is THE lossless codec for the major lossless distributors (HDTracks, avax, et al)  That's not even counting the small niche that we take up with the live Dead, Panic, ABB, etc that offer their products in FLAC.

- ALAC would have to go through a complete overhaul of the format just to catch up to the others right now who are all in continual development as well.  Certainly if they could equal or pass FLAC or the others then the game changes.   But as of today the format is no where close to being anywhere near as feature rich as FLAC, Wv, etc.

- What I am saying is that by manufacturers continuing to invent and dictate in no uncertain terms what you must use without the benefit of choice then the consumer loses out.  Be it Apple or whomever, it is not beneficial to the consumer.  As lossless develops more and more and hopefully gets into mainstream consumers brains I believe it is beneficial to not confuse them with multiple lossless formats.  Easy way to turn people off by giving them too many redundant choices.

I am keenly aware of the big picture of this and am not just limited in my thinking to our small segment of the audio pie.   

[H₂O]

Like I said in my first post

I can't see ALAC supplanting FLAC.  FLAC has already reached a critical mass and ALAC really offers no real advantages over FLAC.

SHN was closed and limited in what file types it can handle and although it is true some audiophiles are looking for and mastering is done in higher resolution then 24bit 192Khz (32bit, 5-6 multiibit DSD, 300+Khz or 11.2MHz DSD etc) I don't see a need for these formats yet especially when file size is absurd today - in the future when we all have PB or EB sized drives maybe not so much.

I do think Apple provides alot of valuable technologies and ideas but IMO ALAC is just apples copy of FLAC (it came out 2 years after FLAC started being used). 

And I don't see sites like Internet Archive, Live<BAND>.com, etc switching over to ALAC as I am sure Apple could easily just yank ALAC back under it's umbrella if it wanted too.

[scb]

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.

I think you're only getting worked up about it because of the Apple component. 

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.   

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that 99.9% of ipod/iPhone owners have never heard of Apple Lossless, so I really don't know how that means Apple is forcing the format on people.  Also, the format has been around for over 7 years.  Why are you getting so worked up about it now?

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.

Again, tell me where there's blind Apple brand loyalty here, especially from me. The only things I've said in this thread are that I think Apple had reasons for making the Apple Lossless format that weren't just about making money, that I don't think it's the end of the world if there's another lossless format, and that I don't even use the Apple Lossless format.  Others in this thread have simply said that they don't think it's the end of the world that Apple Lossless exists.  That's not blind loyalty.  You're the only one really getting worked up over all of this

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.

Well, if you want to get into it, I don't think it is the truth.  Of course, in going into details here, you'll just call me an Apple fanboy, but I'm used to it. But I don't think Monkey's audio can support 96khz or above, and doesn't support more than 2 channels. 

Also, since you're claiming only the technically superior FLAC should be used by all, you should note that technically TTA and Wavpack have better specs than FLAC since they support higher sample rates, bit depths and numbers of channels.  So if you want to claim Apple Lossless is pointless because it's inferior, then technically you're preferred format (and mine) is also pointless and inferior.

Where things differ here is that

1. FLAC is the predominant lossless codec right now.  Not the only lossless codec but the most widespread.

So what?  Saying FLAC is the predominant lossless codec is like saying SACD was more popular than DVD-Audio.  Most people have never heard of FLAC.  I fail to see the harm in other formats existing that these same people also haven't heard 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?

It sounds like you might actually be ok with Apple not supporting FLAC if they also didn't support Apple Lossless.  Am I correct?  If that's the case, would you get this worked up if Apple still didn't support FLAC but decided to support Wavpack or Monkey's audio?  Or would you just think "that's dumb" and move on?

Again, knowing Apple's history, they probably wrote their own codec for the same reason they do most things for themselves: they like to rely on as few 3rd parties as possible. When they started streaming music to Airport Express units, they had the option of streaming uncompressed data (pointless), lossy data (sounds worse) or lossless data.  This was 2003/2004, when FLAC was still pretty new itself and unknown to pretty much everyone but people like us.  Apple could have chosen FLAC or some other non-standard 3rd party format or they could have made their own and made sure it played nice with what they wanted to do.  So they made their own codec for iTunes to stream to the airport express units and included it with Quicktime 6.5.1 in April of 2004.  That means Apple Lossless has been around for over 7.5 years with most people having no idea it even exists. If Apple is pushing the format as hard as you say they are, they're doing a pretty horrible job at it.

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? 

Whether IBM made it, Dell made it, Microsoft made it or you made it, I really wouldn't feel any differently than I do now.  I would see it as another lossless format.  That's it.  I really wouldn't care any more or any less than I already do about Apple Lossless.

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.

But Apple hasn't said you can't use FLAC on a Macintosh or an iOS device.  They just don't have native support for it.  Does Windows have native flac support? Do windows phones and zunes play flac out of the box? No.  Microsoft in thie case is given a pass. It's accepted because Microsoft 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?

If you want to use FLAC there are 3rd party solutions. This isn't any different from Windows Phone.  You (and I) may not like this answer, but Apple isn't the only one giving this answer.

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.

I never said anything was a personal attack.  The only person doing any kinds of personal attacks here (once again) is you.  I simply am not offended by a 7.5+ year audio codec becoming open-source and you're not going to convince me that I should be. 

[scb]

- ALAC would have to go through a complete overhaul of the format just to catch up to the others right now who are all in continual development as well.  Certainly if they could equal or pass FLAC or the others then the game changes.   But as of today the format is no where close to being anywhere near as feature rich as FLAC, Wv, etc.

The geek in me (not the fanboy!) is curious why you think Apple Lossless needs a complete overhaul? 

[OFOTD]

First off Scott I can promise you that i'm not getting worked up over this and I certainly am not getting worked up because of Apple.   That much is certain.  If it was just about Apple then I would not have listed other codecs as well. I would have singled out ALAC by itself.  Instead I listed and continued to list ALAC AND others.  You were the one that choose to concentrate the discussion on the Apple part.   

The geek in me (not the fanboy!) is curious why you think Apple Lossless needs a complete overhaul?

It was in response to Terry.

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...

- ALAC would have to go through a complete overhaul of the format just to catch up to the others right now who are all in continual development as well.  Certainly if they could equal or pass FLAC or the others then the game changes.   But as of today the format is no where close to being anywhere near as feature rich as FLAC, Wv, etc.

So to make ALAC as functional as the widely used lossless codec (FLAC in this case but let's throw in Wv for good measure) it would need an overhaul.  That much is clear in that situation.  Who is to say that Apple couldn't come out and overhaul the codec to at the very least catch up to FLAC, Wv and others.   That would change things.  But that kind of thing just isn't in Apple's DNA for reasons of their own.  It doesn't mean that Apple is bad or that they should be shunned across the board.  It just simply means that their codec is grossly subpar in comparison.  No more no less.

Back to an earlier statement from you though about Monkey's.  It is outdated and it is limited.   Thankfully we're seeing less and less of that codec.    Codecs are not like cars.   With cars more choice is typically a good thing.   Ford, Chevy, Dodge, etc.  More for you to choose from.   A Ford is not going to be fundamentally different than the Dodge on the road.  The Ford is not limited to only Ford roads.     With codecs there are many fundamental differences.   More choices and especially redundant and less established choices confuse and dilute the market.    Again remember that you and I know the difference and care about those differences.   Our friends and family could probably care less.  So why confuse those people even further?

Get rid of ALAC, let Monkey's die, take WMAL and take SHN and ogg with you while you're at it.  Why not do what's is beneficial for the consumer?   

[scb]

Why is it clear that Apple Lossless is so inferior?  That's what I was asking when I said "why does it need an overhaul?"  I'm not trying to be a dick here.  I'm really curious if i'm missing something that makes Apple Lossless "grossly subpar."  You say it's clear, but I guess I don't see why.

[OFOTD]

Here is a brief list of what ALAC does not have in comparison to FLAC and Wv:

- slower encoding speed
- lack of encoding flexability
- error handling
- non-iTunes/QT tagging support
- limited software support (this is the easiest to change with the move to open source)
- replay gain support
- high resolution multichannel support

For comparison WMAL is in the same boat almost point by point but is further limited by it not being open source and I don't believe it is supported by Linux but that may have changed.  It does though provide error handling.   Monkey's limitations as previously stated are multichannel support and limited high resolution support.   TTA's two big negatives are lack of streaming support and its focus on wanting to be an embedded hardware codec.

So as it stands today ALAC, WMAL, APE are in comparison inferior codecs.   They lack major features that FLAC and Wv have.  Again nothing says that Apple, Microsoft and Monkey's couldn't update their codecs to provide the features that the top two offer but today they don't.   Both Apple and Microsoft have track records of sitting on their hands in these situations because i'm guessing they can.  Their right for sure.

[scb]

Here is a brief list of what ALAC does not have in comparison to FLAC and Wv:

- slower encoding speed
- lack of encoding flexability
- error handling
- non-iTunes/QT tagging support
- limited software support (this is the easiest to change with the move to open source)
- replay gain support
- high resolution multichannel support

For comparison WMAL is in the same boat almost point by point but is further limited by it not being open source and I don't believe it is supported by Linux but that may have changed.  It does though provide error handling.   Monkey's limitations as previously stated are multichannel support and limited high resolution support.   TTA's two big negatives are lack of streaming support and its focus on wanting to be an embedded hardware codec.

So as it stands today ALAC, WMAL, APE are in comparison inferior codecs.   They lack major features that FLAC and Wv have.  Again nothing says that Apple, Microsoft and Monkey's couldn't update their codecs to provide the features that the top two offer but today they don't.   Both Apple and Microsoft have track records of sitting on their hands in these situations because i'm guessing they can.  Their right for sure.

-Is the encoding speed slower?  I know encoding of 24 bit flac files is by design slow so decompression can be faster.
-what do you mean by "lack of encoding flexibility?"
-I'm not sure what error handling is or isn't included in Apple Lossless, but adding it wouldn't require an overhaul
-The tagging in Apple Lossless isn't "iTunes" or "Quicktime" tagging.  It's MPEG-4 tagging (a standard)
-Does anyone actually use replay gain?  Anyway, replay gain is supported in the mp4 container, on AAC files, and may currently work with Apple Lossless.  I'm not sure. It certainly wouldn't require an overhaul of the format if not, though.
-Who said Apple Lossless lacks high resolution multichannel support?

[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.

...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.

Can you follow up on this, and the other things you said when you have a chance?  I'm still not clear why stating such inaccurate things seems ok here.  Every time I ask you to address it, you deflect.

Thanks,
keytohwy

[rastasean]

How can I play flac files on a jailbroken iphone?

[scb]

probably the same way you can play them on a non-jailbroken phone.  someone wrote a flac player app. it's on the app store

[lastubbe]

Pre-merger...

I remember renting a car once that had XM. 

I was way thrown off being a SIRIUS fanboy.

I decided not to rent that kinda car again.

What a country this America!

(so much can be taken from this)

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

Here is a brief list of what ALAC does not have in comparison to FLAC and Wv:

- slower encoding speed
- lack of encoding flexability
- error handling
- non-iTunes/QT tagging support
- limited software support (this is the easiest to change with the move to open source)
- replay gain support
- high resolution multichannel support

For comparison WMAL is in the same boat almost point by point but is further limited by it not being open source and I don't believe it is supported by Linux but that may have changed.  It does though provide error handling.   Monkey's limitations as previously stated are multichannel support and limited high resolution support.   TTA's two big negatives are lack of streaming support and its focus on wanting to be an embedded hardware codec.

So as it stands today ALAC, WMAL, APE are in comparison inferior codecs.   They lack major features that FLAC and Wv have.  Again nothing says that Apple, Microsoft and Monkey's couldn't update their codecs to provide the features that the top two offer but today they don't.   Both Apple and Microsoft have track records of sitting on their hands in these situations because i'm guessing they can.  Their right for sure.

You still haven't discouraged me from me being excited about ALAC becoming open source.  None of those factors you list matter to me for my current purposes (in order: so what, so what, md5, so what, you concede, flac does that???, and so what).  If I could more easily add lossless playback to my wifes ipod and car stereo playback, it would be great.  I wish it was FLAC, but if its ALAC, so be it...  Hopefully making it open source will solve some of the issue you bring to light.

Thanks!

Terry

[scb]

I just tested a few 24/96 wav files, encoding both to flac level 8 and apple lossless.

Flac compression was not faster (and was often slower.  compressing to flac level 4 or 5 seemed to be about the same speed as Apple Lossless compression).

Note: I am not saying "Apple Lossless is faster!  Apple rocks!" I'm simply saying that that I don't see any evidence for the statement that Apple Lossless encoding is slower

[Brian Skalinder]

I just tested a few 24/96 wav files

Your tests also don't provide any evidence that ALAC isn't slower than FLAC.  Personally, I don't really care one way or another.  But if you're going to test, the only helpful test must take into account not only speed, but also compression ratio.  Only when the compression ratios are the same (or at least reasonably close) is it worthwhile to compare speed.