First Look: Apple Lossless Audio, Apple Options

[_news_]

Comments about:

First Look: Apple Lossless Audio

[_Dan_]

For the vast majority of recording/passable lossy format combinations, nobody is able (even with the best equipment) in double-blind testing to reliably tell which is the high-bitrate lossy encoded version and which is the lossless version. That isn't to say that there isn't a difference or that absolutely none of the extra information preserved is audible to any listeners, but still, for one-time listening purposes, if the compression rate matters at all, you're generally better off to use a lossy format.

The primary advantage of a lossless codec - just like a lossless graphics format- is that it can be edited or reencoded without creating noticeable artifacts. If you are saving a photographic image for people to view on a bandwidth-sensitive web page, you will probably want to save it as a lossy jpeg- but you had better keep the much larger png, raw, or tiff lossless version of it around in case you ever want to edit it, resize it, save it as a different lossy format (jpeg2000?) which can achieve better compression, etc. Otherwise you will find that both the compressibility and image quality decline sharply. One oversimplifing and probably slightly misleading explanation: Any tiny difference for or in the lossy compressor will change which data it attempts to preserve and which it discards, and in a lossy file there's no way to tell what information is from the original image or recording and what is an artifact of the compression scheme. Likewise, for putting on your portable player, good lossy codecs such as AAC or Vorbis are your best bets- but you want to keep a lossless copy around in case you ever want to edit it, re-encode it, or whatever else.